Social Security: Proposal for $2,400 Extra in Checks Expanded and Reintroduced in Congress
On Feb. 13, Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) formally reintroduced The Social Security Expansion Act to Congress, and this time, he had a lot more support from fellow lawmakers pushing the initiative.
As GOBankingRates previously reported, the Social Security Expansion Act was first introduced on June 9 by Sanders and U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.). Under terms of the bill, anyone who is a current Social Security recipient, or who will turn 62 in 2023, would receive an extra $200 in each monthly check. Meaning, Social Security recipients could get an additional $2,400 a year in benefits if the bill wins approval — something seniors would no doubt welcome as inflation wipes out their annual cost-of-living increases.
While the initial June 9 introduction of the measure has remained dormant, Sanders and a new coalition of supporters — including cosigners Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Val Hoyle (D-Ore.) — have renewed interest amid proposed cuts to Social Security as the U.S. faces its latest debt ceiling crisis.
The latest draft of the bill also provides a way forward for the severely underfunded program, ensuring that future generations can receive benefits through 2096 by taxing the highest earners in the country. According to a press release from Sanders’ office, this will be done “all without raising taxes by one penny on over 93% of American households that make $250,000 or less.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/retirement/social-security-proposal-for-2-400-extra-in-checks-expanded-and-reintroduced-in-congress/ar-AAYAxCo
= new reply since forum marked as read
I read it had...50-something? members sign on (out of over 200 Dem members, 100ish in the progressive causus) but never made it to a vote. What are the issues that kept it from getting more support? In the house or senate, or house and senate? Would it have been more likely to have been passed if the "defund"/"socialism" noise during the 2020 election hadn't caused our big house majority to melt away to almost nothing?
On December 29, failing this and just before turning over the house to the Republicans, Biden signed the more limited bill into law that that does take the opportunity to address a number of issues. The article linked describes what is gained with this one; sadly the increase isn't an extra $2400/year, but otoh it was passed (!) and keeps the checks going out.
The bipartisan measure, which lawmakers had raced to pass ahead of a Dec. 23 deadline to avert a federal government shutdown, provides a road map for spending through September 2023. The legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Dec. 23 by a vote of 225-201 with one member voting "present." The measure had passed the U. S. Senate on Dec. 22 by a 68 to 29 vote. ...
“Funding for the Social Security Administration has steadily eroded over the past decade, while the number of people it serves has grown,” LeaMond says. “The higher funding included in this legislation is a needed step to begin to address this customer service crisis, but more must be done.” ...
https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-2022/changes-to-medicare-services-retirement-requirements-congress-deciding.html
what issues would have to be addressed, i.e., what changes would have to be made, to get majority support for it.
Big is that Soc Sec's always been a self-funded retirement program. Those checks are paid for by the people who receive them, not by transfer of wealth from general taxes. There is no employer "contribution." It's worker earnings that are paid directly to the fund instead of going home in the paychecks.
Changing self funding to taxing rich people to pay into our retirement is actually a really big deal, with its own political and economic risks to the long-term stability of the program.
When you think about it, it would create both public dependence on perpetuation of wealth and establish a right for the wealthy to be at the decision-making table. That alone makes me spit, but, undoubtedly, many people'd buy into the notion of need to protect those who "keep Soc Sec going" and to feel "grateful" to them. I've been nauseated many times in the past by idiot gratitude to the wealthy for gifts that keep afloat public institutions the people are supposed to pay for, like public colleges. It could either become part of or break growth of movement to finally tax the dangerously destructive and antidemocratic wealthy classes out of existence, as I believe we absolutely need to.
In any case, when factors finally come together and public attention focuses on the ideological issues (like if SCOTUS acts?), those backing this approach will already have gathered some support for taxing wealthy people to help fund it. We have to be concerned that an ideological shift could be weaponized to divide. Oh, hell, would be. Look at the manufactured healthcare divide over two for-profit healthcare systems in 2016.
As soon as 2024? What actual role will this approach play in the battle? On the other side, some Republican pols are already taking potentially personally risky stands on the need to cut benefits, and a few to destroy Soc Sec itself. What'll SCOTUS be doing?
all the contributors at the bottom of the scale would pay twice as much into the system.
