Representative Sam Johnson playing a trade-off game on Social Security? Will the Democrats play?

[guillaumeb]

Representative Sam Johnson, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Social Security subcommittee, has introduced a bill to cut Social Security benefits. That has been discussed already at DU. I saw nothing about this in the Saturday Chicago Tribune.

When George W. Bush was President, even with control of Congress, nothing was done of this nature. So is this being put out simply to get the worst possible option out there and see what the Democrats will trade to avoid this catastrophe? I remember, as I am sure we all do, that President Obama was willing to consider a chained CPI in his never-ending search for moderate Republicans. Luckily for current and future SS recipients he was unable to find any moderate Republicans, but I have little faith that the Democrats will stand firm on protecting one of the pillars of the New Deal.

So is this merely "Let's make a Deal", so the GOP can claim bipartisan support for even more destruction of the social safety net? And if Democrats do play along, will this depress Democratic turnout even more in 2018?

[deist99]

1. I hope not

I'm hoping that even with repubs in control of congress and the White House that this is still a third rail. So if they do push for it they will lose big in the 2018 midterms.

Here is my solution for social security. Get rid of the cap on taxable earnings (right now only the first $118,500 is taxed). Make a minimum insured amount of $1500.00 a month for retirees and $1000 a month for spouses. What I mean is that if you are insured for retirement the lowest you will receive is $1500.00. Right now the average retirement benefit is $1308 for retired workers and $704 for spouses which is pathetic since we are the richest country on earth. Make a maximum insured amount of double the minimum insured amount is.

I have run these numbers through online save social security calculators and this extends the time of social security running out of the surplus until 2072. Hopefully by that time we could fix it again. I don't know why it's so hard to make Americans who have been really successful pay a little more for those who weren't. But no, we will probably see tax cuts for the rich before we see something like this.

[guillaumeb]

2. Welcome to DU.

And on the subject of earnings, earned and unearned income should all be subject to SS taxes. Given that the 1% generally derive most of their income from non-wage sources, this would allow the 1% to fully support this system.

An average retirement benefit of $1308 a month is truly pathetic. In my area, the Chicago region, it would be very difficult to live on that amount.

[deist99]

3. Thank you

Been here for awhile but haven't posted in a long time. Yes you make an excellent point, I will now add that to my save social security plan. All earned and unearned income is subject to the social security tax. Now I just need someone smarter than me to run the numbers.

I think the repubs are being real sneaky with the means testing. Once you start means testing you can start calling social security a welfare program and of course a lot of people want to get rid of welfare.

[guillaumeb]

4. Agreed on means testing. It is a way to frame SS as welfare.

And welfare is what other, mainly non-white, people receive. When white seniors receive benefits those benefits were earned. And I have heard that argument numerous times.