Democrats back $15 minimum wage, but stalemate on Social Security

[DonViejo]

Source: The Washington Post

By David Weigel July 9 at 2:07 AM

ORLANDO — The Democratic National Committee added a call for a $15 minimum wage to its 2016 platform, a victory for progressives produced by a deal between supporters of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Just an hour later, however, Clinton-loyal members of the platform committee defeated two amendments that would have committed the party to expanding Social Security — a moment marked by cries of "Shame!" and "Are you Democrats?" from Sanders supporters sitting in the observation area of the Hilton where the party was meeting.

The minimum wage plank sailed through early, after Nina Turner, a prominent Sanders from Ohio, introduced and opened it for friendly amendments. Mary Kay Henry, the president of the Service Employees International Union, quickly obliged, and the new language eliminated wiggle room over when the party would favor a doubling of the wage.

The language at the start of the day was as follows:

Democrats believe that the current minimum wage is a starvation wage and must be increased to a living wage. No one who works full time should have to raise a family in poverty. We believe that Americans should earn at least $15 an hour and have the right to form or join a union. We applaud the approaches taken by states like New York and California. We should raise and index the minimum wage, give all Americans the ability to join a union regardless of where they work, and create new ways for workers to have power in the economy. We also support creating one fair wage for all workers by ending the sub-minimum wage for tipped workers and people with disabilities.

-snip-

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/09/democrats-back-15-minimum-wage-but-stalemate-on-social-security/

[jtuck004]

1. "the current minimum wage is a starvation wage " As opposed to Social Security. n/t

[silvershadow]

49. This Social Security -only income person says Amen to that. nt

[RKP5637]

2. "The typical American couple has only $5,000 saved for retirement."

Yep, that should work really well for funding their retirement. FFS, millions are in trouble in the US. Many can hardly survive, yet save for retirement too.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-typical-american-couple-has-only-5000-saved-for-retirement-2016-04-28

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Everyone has ideas

They should re-establish a Social Security minimum, which was quietly
ended in 2006 by GWB and the GOP Congress. That was something like
$640 at the time I believe, and now it's $0 - zero.

And they should put a cap on the dollar amount of COLA increases, for
example 2.3% up to $40. That way those at the lower end of the income
scales would get an increase that meant something to them, while those
at the top, who already get a large amount and usually have substantial
other retirement income, would see less of a percentage increase.

[sulphurdunn]

8. Considering how crooked our

Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:29 AM - Edit history (1)

political establishment is, means testing might be a can best left unopened. A simpler solution might be repealing the income tax on SS benefits.

[Freddie]

33. Yes

I believe we have Saint Ronnie to thank for that.

[doc03]

58. That is partially true, St. Ronnie started taxing at 50% Bill Clinton raised it

to 85%. I think what they should do is raise the threshold for the SS to reflect the cost of living. It hasn't been changed since 1983 when it was started. Eventually if it is not changed everyone getting SS will have to pay tax on their benefits.

[dynamo99]

35. Remove the wage cap

and let everyone be taxed for SS at the same rate. Currently people who make over $119K pay NO SS tax on income above that point.

Capping COLA increases makes me nervous... in your example, if inflation spiked to 15% (which it has done in the past, and that's not ancient history in MY book) retired people would be SOL. Now that corporations have pretty much gotten rid of pensions, plus "free" trade has shipped the jobs overseas, a lot of retirees have no other income.

[trc]

40. This is IMO the best option

Tax all income as SSI and then expand social security, seems logical

[cpamomfromtexas]

44. Those who receive "dividends" or stock in lieu of pay won't pay anything

This must be fixed so that high earners receiving this type of compensation pay in too.

[Yupster]

45. That would help immensely

If everyone was taxed for social security at the same rate, it would bring so many extra billions into the system from people not contributing.

Just bringing the public school teachers into social security who are currently not participating would be an immense benefit to the system.

I think that one change alone would be a game changer for the system's finances.

[Cass]

64. Right on.

Not sure why this is rarely mentioned as a solution by politicians.

[happyslug]

37. SSI is $740 a month.

Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:43 PM - Edit history (1)

People are presumed to be disabled when they turn 67, thus eligible for SSI. Thus a duplicate program. Supplemental Security Income, SSI, is reduced by any other income a person gets, including any Social Security. SSI is run by Social Security and uses the same definition of disability, thus if you are disabled for you, you are disabled for both. Thus SSI provides income of $740 a month, to disabled people, including people over age 67

[bucolic_frolic]

46. "other income"

what counts as other income?

working, ok, that's earned income
dividends?
annuity?
capital gains?
is there an asset test - house, car, etc?

Lots of unknowns there

[happyslug]

51. For SSI all is income.

Un-earned income reduces SSI dollar for dollar. Earned income is subject to the $30 and a third rule. You reduced the earned income by $30. Then reduced the remaining earned income by one third. The remaining amount is used to reduce the SSI grant dollar for dollar.

As to assets, to get SSI, the home you live in does not count as an asset, no matter its value. The household items in that house does not count. One automobile, no matter it's value, does not count as an asset. All other assets must not exceed $2000, $3000 for a couple. If someone bas irredeemably property, I.e. Property the owner can not sell, it does not count to the $2000 asset limit (thus many elderly purchased irredeemably prepaid burial plans, such plans NOT being able to be cashed in, do not count to the $2000 asset limit, on the other hand whole life, life insurance whose value exceed $2000, does count as an asset to the $2000 limit, for such whole life, life insurance has cash value that some one can cash).

SSI is limited to $740, $1100 for a couple living together. If two blood relatives are living together they both get $740, but if you have two non blood relatives living together it is limited to $1100 for both, if they are married or not.

[former9thward]

47. Social Security disagrees with you.

They say there has been and still is a minimum benefit in effect since 1972.

Congress established the special minimum benefit in 1972 to target increased benefits to workers with low earnings over long careers. At that time, the program already had a “regular minimum benefit”—in place since Social Security's inception—but legislators were concerned that it provided a windfall to workers whose low lifetime earnings were due to sporadic work histories in covered employment, rather than to consistent low-wage work (Olsen and Hoffmeyer 2001/2002).2 The special minimum benefit was designed to address that concern

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/policybriefs/pb2014-01.html

[merrily]

4. "After midnight, during a session that began nearly two hours after it was scheduled, two amendments

on Social Security policy got speedy rejections. ..... But to the dismay of the few dozen progressive activists in the back of the room, both amendments failed by about the margin that Clinton enjoyed over Sanders on the committee. (The ballot itself was secret.)"


Puzzling.

[4dsc]

10. Puzzling? Not to progressives

We can and should see the writing on the wall here. The corporatists of the party don't want to see our party as one that works mostly for the people but rather a small minority. That is why the DNC needs to get out of the party so we can return to being the party of the people.

[merrily]

13. Hillary Rodham Clinton (on google) on Medicare and Social Security

My plan will strengthen Medicare by reducing health care costs, enhance and protect Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest to contribute more, and expand benefits for widows and those who took time out of the paid workforce to care for a child or sick family member. I'll fight attempts to privatize or weaken these programs.

https://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&btnG=Search&q=Hillary+Clinton+on+Social+Security#eob=m.0d06m5//short

So, what appears to be the behavior of her representatives is puzzling.

[pangaia]

27. Somehow it doesn't puzzle me at all.

[Silver_Witch]

52. Me either.

Perfectly clear.

[George II]

20. "...both amendments failed by about the margin that Clinton enjoyed over Sanders..."

So it's Clinton's fault, right?

Remember, the "margin that Clinton enjoyed" is the result of the votes of ~25 million Democrats and Independents.

[merrily]

63. You know I didn't write the article, right?

But I guess you took me off ignore?

[George II]

65. It was a pretty long article, but for some reason you chose to isolate that one short passage.

I don't have anyone on ignore.

[merrily]

66. Some reason? That passage describes the vote cited in the title of the article.

Since elementary school, I've scored amazingly high on reading comprehension in standardized tests.

I do stink at remembering names, though. I thought you had promised to put me on ignore because I had used your name in one of my posts, allegedly so I could archive it for future or some such paranoid, egocentric nonsense that imagined I am so much organized and prescient than I am. Must have been another DUer. My bad. I apologize.

[George II]

67. Actually, it really doesn't. The title of the article mentions $15 miminum wage and "stalemate"....

....on Social Security, but your excerpt doesn't mention the minimum wage and notes that the two Social Security amendments were voted down (i.e., not a "stalemate&quot

There were many other observations and comments in the article, too.

Enjoy your Sunday afternoon.

[merrily]

68. Actually, it does. Also, it's still Sunday morning where I am and I usually enjoy my Sundays, but

thanks anyway. And quoting a passage still means I did not write the article. Enjoy your Sunday as well. Gotta run.

[Octafish]

5. Isn't Social Security a Republican program?

[hollowdweller]

6. If we don't expand Social Security we will just spend more on the disability and SSI part anyway

We need some sort of "Social Security Plus" program where workers can pay a bit more and get expanded or earlier benefits.

People need to be able to retire so their kids can have the jobs they have been hanging on to and be able to pay their student loans and move out of the basement.

[mopinko]

30. this

i've been saying this for a long time. voluntary buy in. let people choose to make the max contribution. make employers match it, too.
and care giver credit is a must. it's just the right thing to do.

[Akamai]

38. Yes -- and also we will ramp up fear if we don't expand Social Security. Great points you made!

[Arizona Roadrunner]

7. Republicans will have fun with this one

Now the Republicans can run a campaign on Democrats being against Social Security improvements. How does that help Democrats win elections? Good by Florida!!!!

By the way, they also voted on a support business amendment which was straight out of the US Chamber of Commerce. No consumer protections and anti any regulations......WOW!!!! Who is running this show.......

[sulphurdunn]

11. An answer to that question

might get the post snuffed for insufficient support and enthusiasm.

[NorthCarolina]

39. The way DU is now, you can have a post scrubbed for just quoting the words of

conservative Democrats. Imagine that, you quote someone using their own words and the post gets scrubbed because those words reflect poorly in a campaign season. Happened to me. Apparently there is a need to hide reality now.

[pangaia]

28. But as I was told here somewhere, it's just a piece of paper.

It doesn't mean anything.

As to your question? As GWB used to quip, "heh, heh, heh."

[groundloop]

9. Eliminate the cap on social security tax - problem solved

[sulphurdunn]

12. To do that would require

the replacement of the 18th century political establishment in this country with a whole new breed of cat. Come to think of it, that would also be necessary to solve just about any serious problem confronting 21st century earth.

[still_one]

14. That is the thing that needs to be done first, before other things can be addressed.

[suffragette]

32. Apparently, scrapping the cap is what was rejected

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/09/democrats-back-15-minimum-wage-but-stalemate-on-social-security/

After midnight, during a session that began nearly two hours after it was scheduled, two amendments on Social Security policy got speedy rejections. One would have eliminated the cap on Social Security taxes; another would have created a new cost of living index for Social Security benefits to replace the cost of living adjustment, or COLA.

[still_one]

41. That is the direct solution to the Social Security short fall. Of course money should have never

been allowed to be borrowed from the Social Security fund in the first place to finance the wars, but that is another issue.

The end result is that while the platform states the "ideal goals" of the Democratic party, whether it is in the platform or not, it still needs to be passed by Congress, and because something isn't in the platform does not mean that it won't happen, especially if Democrats are able to regain the majority in Congress

[suffragette]

42. Completely agree with you on scrapping the cap and that SS funds should not be used

For other purposes.

Since it is an "ideal goal" it should be part of the platform.

[still_one]

43. Sure it should.

[seabeckind]

16. Wouldn't that increase employer costs?

That's the third rail for the owner class.

[KeepItReal]

23. Those same employers enjoying record profits while stagnating wages?

eom

[seabeckind]

24. Yep. They didn't get record profits by increasing their labor costs. n/t

[KeepItReal]

26. Walmart can go to $15/hour simply by cutting the size of its stock buyback.

They wouldn't have to raise prices one cent.

Can Walmart really afford a $15 wage increase? It can if company executives dip into the substantial pool of money Walmart has allocated to repurchase shares of its own stock. Share buybacks, as they are called, reduce the number of shares traded on the market so that the same level of earnings are distributed over fewer owners, making each remaining share worth more. To bolster its stock price, Walmart recently authorized $20 billion for share repurchases in 2016 and 2017. But share buybacks do nothing to strengthen the company’s productivity or bottom line.

If Walmart redirected the $10 billion per year it has authorized for buybacks toward investment in human capital, it could provide its 825,000 lowest-paid U.S. employees a raise of as much as an additional $7.67 per hour without raising consumer prices by a penny. On top of the $10 an hour Walmart has already committed to, this would more than pay for the $15 an hour Walmart workers are calling for.

http://prospect.org/article/how-walmart-could-afford-pay-15-hour

[Sunlei]

34. So then no 'cap' on the guaranteed ss check *everyone*(who paid in) including billionares get?

[secondwind]

15. This is so sad... This is why I was a Bernie Sanders fan..oh well, we must carry on. I will

vote for her in November, but I find this very troubling

[RoccoR5955]

17. Why do they not want to expand social security?

What is the problem with raising the cap, so that the fund could be solvent for a much longer time.
Do they want to social security to remain the same?
Personally, I think that they should lower the age to collect social security, and eliminate the cap. This would make for more folks in the workforce, as people could retire sooner.
Oh, and how about raising the benefit to a livable amount?

[annabanana]

19. deficit hawkery is still the order of the day. . .n/t

[RoccoR5955]

50. So is expanding military spending.

as well as deficit hawkery. This is not restricted to one political party. This only proves that the people elected on BOTH parties are out of touch with the needs of the general public. One perhaps more than another, but they are BOTH guilty.

[lostnfound]

18. Increase in minimum wage helps fund social security also

If minimum wage goes up by $5, an amount equal to 14% goes into social security -- that 70 cents per hour or $1400 per year per person.

On edit: I'm also upset that there's no willingness to push for expanded social security on Clinton's part, but just pointing out that there's some benefit.

[midnight]

21. Nina Turner is a smart women… Good work...

[L. Coyote]

22. Great, now 70-year-olds who need to work can get paid better.

[daa]

25. Scrap the cap - No says HRC supporters

Realistic COLA- Now says HRC supporters. No cost of living increase but when I picked my drug plan pills listed $303. Bought the now $369. Nice.

[ananda]

29. Stalemate? Democrats?!!!????

What a world when Dems don't stand for what's right
sometimes.

[arithia]

31. As someone who survives only on SS disability

The program isn't solvent, or at least that's what people on both sides of the aisle keep telling us. Now there are many reasons for this- lack of proper funding, aging boomers, increased life span, provider overbilling (Medicare has reclaimed huge amounts of money through audits of medical records http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20120224/NEWS/302249950) and a variety of other factors that point to the fact that Medicare desperately needs modernized and overhauled for today.

I'm looking at an eventual reduction in my $12k a year to live on if that does not happen. I'm *lucky* to have that much- that's the sad part.

Now, if the program is expanded without these overhauls, it's just going to sink the whole ship faster. There will be just as much waste, just as much bullsh*t, just on a larger scale. With all due respect to the people saying Clinton's stance "isn't good enough" or "isn't Democratic".... that simply isn't grounded in reality.

Expansion would be great. Most people who apply for SSI and SSDI never see it- the rep who approved my case told me of a farmer with no arms and no legs from a thresher accident who was denied his claim. Much like Medicaid, these programs don't receive enough money and are, quite frankly, rigged to drop applicants. I suppose they figure that if you REALLY need it, you will keep applying even when dropped. It's why the process of getting approved for coverage takes 2+ years on average.

** We need to clean and organize that house before we invite more people in. The people living there now are f*cked as it is. **

[Freddie]

36. I'm a payroll admin

I really don't care what people earn but when their big paychecks get even bigger because of the cap, it pisses me off. Where's my mid-year raise?
Removing the cap would amount to a 6.2% tax increase on those earning more than $236000 and a gradual .01% to 6.2% tax increase on folks earning between $118000 and $236000. I would feel terribly sorry for them.
Years ago the cap also applied to the Medicare portion (1.45%). When that cap was removed I don't remember any protests from the well-off.

[awoke_in_2003]

53. "I would feel terribly sorry for them"

They make more than a huge majority of Americans. No sympathy here

[Freddie]

54. Forgot the sarcasm thingy!

In this business you really get immune to what the highly paid earn. But the FICA cap still bugs me.
Used to have a guy come to my office every summer asking when he'd hit the cap "so he could budget." Extra payment on the yacht?

[awoke_in_2003]

55. Sorry

My sarcasm meter hasn't kicked in yet, but I just made some cafe con leche so I should achieve what passes for normalcy soon

[avaistheone1]

48. I am blown away how the Democrats shaping the platform are making it such a conservative one.

What the hell is going on? Don't they get the message the Democratic party should not be representing the 1%, but rather
the working class and middle class that make up most of this country.

It looks like the emerging regime is no change from the past regime.

[Ash_F]

56. I am surprised they gave in on $15 and not SS.

I would have sworn $15 would be a harder sell.

Maybe they are not worried about failing to deliver on Fight for 15, since those people tend to be younger, minorities and vote less, where with SS there would be consequences for waffling at the polls because seniors vote more?

[pansypoo53219]

57. sold their souls to wall street.

[Arizona Roadrunner]

59. $15 per hour minimum wage may be meaningless if TPP passes

As a person who has served on a local government’s Board of Directors, I am VERY concerned about the TPP ISDS court process with results being the surrendering of governmental sovereignty to corporate interests, foreign and domestic.
Basically due to secretive deliberations, this “judicial” process is designed to favor corporate over governmental concerns and interests. This agreement should not allow corporations to use this judicial process, but should demand they use our existing judicial process as it relates to governmental entities. How many state and local governments can afford to be involved in such a process? Just by the threat of suits through ISDS, a climate where governmental units cave in will be created. Look at what has happened under NAFTA and the WTO as it relates to our right to know where our food comes from. Look at how a Canadian corporation is using NAFTA to sue the U.S. on the Keystone project.
This will mean that political topics such as minimum wage increases and housing and zoning laws may be pre-empted by just the threat of a suit through the ISDS process. Look at what happened with Egypt when a corporation tried to use a process analogous to the ISDS to prevent Egypt from raising their minimum wage laws. (Veolia v. Egypt)
Therefore, I recommend, in the national interest, this agreement not be approved. When people find out how this can be used to prevent them from finding out things such as where products are made, etc., there will be charges of treason and the political process will never recover the trust of the American citizens.

By not voting against the TPP outright, the Democrats have given Trump a great opportunity to tie the Democrats to the "establishment" and "corporate America". He can also use this position to raise questions about the Democrats "really caring about you and your job". This is a loser position for the Democrats for the "down ticket" candidates too. By the way, the US Chamber of Commerce is not worried about Clinton being "currently" against TPP. They figure after she gets into office, she will find a way for her to be "currently" in favor of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/chamber-of-commerce-lobby_b_9104096.html

[cstanleytech]

60. To be honest I would have preferred a platform that would take the setting of the minimum wage

away from Congress and given it to the GAO since Congress has proven that it cannot be trusted with it.

[Tactical Peek]

61. "The platform as it existed promised that Democrats would "expand" Social Security"

From the linked WaPo article:

The platform as it existed promised that Democrats would "expand" Social Security, but Sanders allies wanted details above and beyond what was passed at the drafting meeting in St. Louis.

I would probably support those amendments myself, but the WaPo headline is misleading, if the platform already called for expanding Social Security.

Obviously misleading, since many commenters seem to think the D platform now does not support expanding Social Security when actually it does.

[chapdrum]

62. Stalemating on Social Security.

Wonder if that's the HRC or the Sanders delegates.

[forest444]

69. And the TPP?

We can kiss Social Security - and most our social policy since Teddy Roosevelt - goodbye if it's ever fully implemented, ISDS kangaroo courts and all.

[Doctor_J]

70. Those who oppose expanding social security are not really democrats

The Turd Way are actually Reagan republicans who hope to undo what's left of the New Deal and War On Poverty.