July 8, 2008
Candidates Set To Tackle Social Security?
Washington Post: Obama, McCain Are Both Proposing Dramatic Changes
-
Play CBS Video Video Convention Changes and Economic Plans Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama are spending this week discussing their economic plans to Americans. Vaughn Ververs, senior political editor at cbsnews.com, offers some insight on recent political news.
-
Video Candidates Talk Taxes John McCain and Barack Obama hope to rally support for their campaigns by outlining their tax plans. Chip Reid reports that relief from gas prices is still far off.
-
Interactive Social Security How it works, the shortfall and Bush's proposal, and facts on recipients.
-
Section Campaign Coverage News and video from the campaign trail.
From Our Partner:
Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain are both proposing dramatic changes to Social Security, taking on the financially fragile "third rail of American politics" that Congress and recent presidents have been unable to repair.
McCain's aides said he favors a bipartisan approach and is open to working with Congress on finding a solution to the long-term solvency of the New Deal-era program, indicating he could support an array of ideas such as raising the retirement age, reducing scheduled increases in benefits and allowing younger workers to put money they currently pay for Social Security taxes into personal savings accounts. President Bush floated a similar idea for private accounts in 2005, but polls found it had little public support.
Obama has been even more specific. The Democrat from Illinois has proposed raising taxes on upper-income Americans to address projected shortfalls in Social Security, but his plan has been greeted with skepticism, even from some in his own party.
Under current law, income up to $102,000 a year is taxed for Social Security, and Obama would create a "doughnut hole" by not imposing new Social Security taxes on income between $102,000 and $250,000. His aides said income exceeding $250,000 would be taxed at a rate of 2 percent to 4 percent, rather than the 6 percent tax that people pay toward Social Security on income below the $102,000 cutoff, which is matched by their employer's paying a 6 percent tax. Employers would probably pay an additional tax from 2 percent to 4 percent.
Experts predict that proposal would make up less than half of the $4.3 trillion shortfall Social Security is expected to face over the next 75 years.
Combined with Obama's proposed increases on income taxes for upper-income Americans and state taxes, Republicans argue, individuals who make more than $250,000 could face close to 50 cents in taxes on every dollar that they earned over $250,000 under a President Obama.
"If you believe you should pay more taxes, I am the wrong candidate for you. Senator Obama is your man," McCain said in a speech as he began an economic-themed campaign tour in Denver yesterday. "The choice in this election is stark and simple. Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won't. I will cut them where I can. Jobs are the most important thing our economy creates. When you raise taxes in a bad economy, you eliminate jobs. I'm not going to let that happen."
At a news conference in St. Louis, Obama said that the Republican senator from Arizona offered policies that "are very much the same as those we have seen from the Bush administration."
Some Democrats are questioning Obama's decision to address Social Security at all. The program is expected to bring in less in taxes than it disburses in benefits sometime in the next decade, although the Social Security Board of Trustees estimates that interest on the program's bond holdings will keep it from running a deficit until at least 2041.
"From the standpoint of the Democratic Party, I would think it would make the most sense to leave it alone," said Dean Baker, an Obama supporter and co-director of the D.C.-based Center for Economic and Policy Research. "It's not an immediate, pressing issue."
Jason Furman, Obama's economic policy director, emphasized that the proposal is flexible and said that Obama would work with Congress to come up with any proposal on the topic. Furman said the campaign has not determined the extent to which Obama would raise taxes or whether people who made more than $250,000 would receive additional benefits.
Obama has ruled out raising the retirement age or reducing benefits, two other ideas some in Congress have touted for fixing the program.
"He's setting forth a proposal about where he would start for Social Security solvency that is far more specific and concrete than anything proposed by a presidential nominee in recent memory," Furman said. Bush offered ideas on the issue in 2000, including the idea of individual retirement accounts.
During the Democratic primaries, Obama criticized Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) for not giving a specific proposal on Social Security.
"Conventional thinking in Washington says that Social Security is the third rail of American politics," Obama said in October. "It says you should hedge, and dodge and spin, but at all costs, don't answer."
At the time, he said he would consider applying the payroll tax to all income, which would largely fund Social Security for the next several decades. But his campaign has emphasized in recent weeks that he would raise taxes only on Americans who make more than $250,000.
Experts say that while that saves Obama from being criticized for adding taxes for those who make $102,000 to $250,000, it also brings in fewer dollars for the system, less than half of what is needed to match the shortfall.
Len Berman, the director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, said that although Obama "should get credit for doing something about Social Security," the proposal lacks enough specificity about its tax increases to illustrate how it would help Social Security and whether those increased taxes would slow the economy.
"It would be nice to know how it affects economic incentives," Berman said.
Henry J. Aaron, an Obama supporter and economics expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said he is concerned that the proposal would fundamentally change Social Security. Unlike other government programs, such as Medicaid, that are targeted for low-income people, Social Security has traditionally operated as a program in which participants get more money in benefits if they have put more in. A person who pays taxes on $90,000 of income, on average, during his lifetime receives higher benefits than a person who retires after making $50,000 in an average year.
Obama's proposal could alter that formula, because he has not specified whether those making more than $250,000 would receive additional benefits.
"I don't think this is the right way to raise the cap, although raising the cap is a good idea," Aaron said. "Traditionally, there is a linkage between benefits and taxes paid. It's what has helped make Social Security a benefit that people claim with pride."
Furman noted that Medicare, the health-care program for the elderly, is popular, even though it does not limit the amount of income that can be taxed to pay for it, meaning that wealthy people pay more into the system.
"The most important factor in public support for Social Security is the confidence that it's going to be there when you retire," he said.
Obama is offering a significantly more specific idea than either Bush or Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) did as candidates in 2004. Bush declined in 2004 to say how he would address Social Security's shortfall, mentioning only his backing of personal accounts, which found little support the next year on Capitol Hill.
McCain supported those accounts in 2005 and has spoken positively about them in his campaign, but aides emphasize that he would seek consensus on the issue.
"John McCain is committed to honoring the promise of Social Security and believes that his bipartisan record will serve him well as he works across the aisle to ensure the long-term solvency of the program," said Tucker Bounds, a McCain spokesman.
Aides said McCain would not support a tax increase to address the solvency of the program, but they did not give further details.
Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, described McCain's plan as a "decision to repackage President Bush's failed and flawed plan to privatize Social Security."
Maya MacGuineas, a budget expert at the New America Foundation who advised McCain on Social Security in 2000, said of his proposal: "In terms of details, there is so much to be filled in."
By Perry Bacon Jr.
© 2008 The Washington Post Company
|
More From Politics
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 14
- next
See all 280 CommentsPosted by JonGood65 at 05:21 PM : Jul 09, 2008
It blows me away that anyone would vote for either party''s pawn, dem. or rep. Third party candidates are looking better all the time. They can''t be running for the ego power trip, they can''t be running for the money, they can''t be running to win, so they must be running on conscience, because they know they''re not going to win, not this time, though stranger things have happened & may this cycle with this pair of nippleheads, Barack O-BOMB-A & John McFuddled. Anyone voting for either, even as the "lesser of 2 evils" is dreaming.....
It''s time to get off our lazy butts & take back our country. We cannot rely on the government to do the right thing for us. It''s not going to get better because you vote McSame or Braaawwwk Obanana. It''s too late for a new president to save us, at least either of these numbdumb nippleheads. I wish more people had enough self respect to get up & actually do something more than talking, arguing & calling each other names, tho I have no problem calling the 2 frontrunners names, I don''t trust or respect them, either one. (BTW, it''s my birthday, so I''m taking my freedom of speech with extra enthusiasm today ;-)
Every time the federal government increases taxes on the rich as Sen. Obama is promising to do now, the rich have always wound up paying less and the poorer folks have wound up being forced to pick up the revenue shortfall.
Every time the rich have been given a tax cut, such as what G.W. Bush did, they have wound up paying more in taxes. Government revenues have gone up and the poor haven''''t been forced to pick up the slack.
Folks, history, via the Jimah Carter, and the Bill Clinton regime prior to the Republican take over of Congress in 1994 reveals the horrors on the poor working class these tax and spend liberals have visited.
It simply blows me away why anyone would vote for a Democrat, period.
Posted by JonGood65 at 05:21 PM : Jul 09, 2008
===
This is one "political theory" that makes no sense to me. Do you have an authoritative source to cite? I''d be very interested in researching.... it has the slight scent if possible logic, but overall stinks of nonsense. Enlighten me, please.
I will say I agree that there are a select few who run the political "system," in the US, and a select few even more clandestine and unknown who run the world''s economy to the destruction of the majority of people for the profit of the very, very few (comparatively speaking), and the politicians, and the big two parties (dem & rep) are their pawns, as are nearly all elected officials. Why do you think there are now only a few major grocery companies, phone companies, etc. and getting fewer, and those that remain grow bigger and bigger, sucking up all the little fish so finally the consumer has no choice whatsoever and can be used totally. If you think the differences between dem & rep are in any way significant, think again... it''s an illusion, created for your consumption, and you are no smarter or more clever than anyone else who thinks politics and politicians will ever, at this point, do a *** thing for the people. At this point, it will be up to Americans wising up, finding common ground (like survival!)-see my earlier post- and taking back this country and it''s original values, and minding its own business until such time prosperity has returned (if it can be) and we can afford the luxury of helping others in the world. Dem & rep is just another device to divide & conquer, just like you describe your hyphenated hype.
Every time the federal government increases taxes on the rich as Sen. Obama is promising to do now, the rich have always wound up paying less and the poorer folks have wound up being forced to pick up the revenue shortfall.
Every time the rich have been given a tax cut, such as what G.W. Bush did, they have wound up paying more in taxes. Government revenues have gone up and the poor haven''t been forced to pick up the slack.
Folks, history, via the Jimah Carter, and the Bill Clinton regime prior to the Republican take over of Congress in 1994 reveals the horrors on the poor working class these tax and spend liberals have visited.
It simply blows me away why anyone would vote for a Democrat, period.
Sorry John, but that is how Social Security was designed to work and has worked since its inception in the 1930''''s, when you were born and Republicans began their opposition to it. What is a disgrace is that this incredibly ingnorant statement did not even make CBS coverage on this crucial issue.
Posted by Splainin2Do at 12:18 PM : Jul 09, 2008
=========================
If we could get a bit more truthfulness out of all you left wing pinko spin doctors, it would be revealed how Social Security is not in anyway operating "how Social Security was designed to work and has worked since its inception in the 1930''s".
Social Security was never meant to be a manditory payroll tax.
Social Security was never meant to be a retirement plan.
Social Security was never meant to be the healthcare provider for the elderly.
Social Security was never meant to have what it took in tossed into the general fund.
The Democrat Party has taken this socialist program and converted it into the closest thing to communism we currently have in the federal system.
For it taxes the poor from dollar one at a rate of 14.8%, money that many, many, many of them will never receive a dime of.
Not 14.8% you argue?? Well, that''s because your employer is being forced at gun point by the federal government to confiscate 7.4% of it before you even get to see it on your check.
Is the word HYPHENATED a NEW Rush Limbaaaugh catch phrase? Seems all the CONS on this site have been using THAT "talking point".
WHAT does the WORD HYPHEN Mean in your references??
...
Posted by homespunlady at 12:15 PM : Jul 09, 2008
====================
Sorry I missed this one homespun, I was busy making a deposit of Obama''s in the porcelain offering bowl.
I offer this: [[The Democrat Party has been using the hyphenating of America for years now to create an American version of class seperations.]] and you jump to the conclusion that someone else created this term??
Well I guess someone did, but it was long before Rush. It was long before the Democrat Party began to use the technique long about 1968.
I call it hyphenate, someone else calls it divide and conquer. Any number of references all mean the same thing. It''s a technique despots have long used to gain power.
For you see, it has long been recognised there is a select group of folks who actually run the DNC, telling you minions how and what to think. But they are very clever at the way they do it.
It was most recently demonstrated when they disenfranchised a huge block of minion votes so they could use the "Super Delegates" to achieve the end result they planned from day one.
Title: "Docs Bailing Out of Medicare"
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5326078&page=1
Title: "Dead Docs%u2019 IDs Used to Abuse Medicare"
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5332824&page=1
WE THE PEOPLE NEED TO DEMAND THAT CANDIDATES ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. It%u2018s the responsibility of the people, as government is, by its founding principles, OF, BY & FOR the people, to protest & insist on change when it fails to do the right thing. It''s time to stop blaming the government (this will NOT change them). We need to not be sucked into voting for BAD candidates. There are more choices than McCain & Obama. IMO, neither one gives a rip & it''s time for us to take back our country, it IS our responsibility to choose responsible government, & when government proves irresponsible, as Americans it is our responsibility to do something about it, up to & including protest, noncooperation & even revolution, though I only advocate the kind of activism as proposed by Gandhi. This is what it MEANS to be an American, to HAVE a voice, to USE it. FREEDOM IS NOT FREE. In times such as these we must find effective, nonviolent ways to fight for it. That%u2019s why we have freedom of speech, etc.
NOTHING LIKE THE MEDIA GIVING THIS IDIOT A FREE PASS ON EVERYTHING. I CAN''T WAIT UNTIL HE FALLS FLAT ON HIS FACE. THAT DAY WILL COME. WATCH & SEE
Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that''s a disgrace. It''s an absolute disgrace and it''s got to be fixed."
Sorry John, but that is how Social Security was designed to work and has worked since its inception in the 1930''s, when you were born and Republicans began their opposition to it. What is a disgrace is that this incredibly ingnorant statement did not even make CBS coverage on this crucial issue.
Is the word HYPHENATED a NEW Rush Limbaaaugh catch phrase? Seems all the CONS on this site have been using THAT "talking point".
WHAT does the WORD HYPHEN Mean in your references??
As far as my references to ECONOMIC IMBALANCES - READ!
The FACTS ARE THERE as to DEPRESSION and eventual REBELLION based on EXCESSIVE Economic Disparity.
I could CARE LESS HOW that disparity is fixed; but IT DOES NEED TO BE CORRECTED before even WORSE problems occur.
If it''s by LESS REGULATION then let it be LESS REGULATION FOR ALL - NOT just the POWER MONGERS and their "loyal servants" which I''m seeing occurring NOW.
If it means BREAKING UP the CURRENT MONOPOLIES that ARE in control of or nation through legislation EVEN BETTER.
BUT if you believe that going DOWN the economic road WE are CURRENTLY FOLLOWING is the answer SIMPLY ASK yourself HOW FAR and WHERE WILL it lead???
Trillions of TAX DOLLARS going to BAIL OUT INVESTMENT BANKERS who AVERAGED SIX MILLION APIECE in SALARIES THIS YEAR?
BILLIONS spent on "population control" to "protect" WHO and from WHAT??
GATED COMMUNITIES BUILT and maintained by the WEALTHY to "KEEP OUT" WHO? and WHY ARE THEY WORRIED if this NATION SPENDS SO MUCH on "security"?
POVERTY BREEDS CRIME, DISPARITY BREEDS UNREST and GREED COUPLED WITH CORRUPTION that tilts TOO FAR creates things like the Fall of the Roman Empire, the French Aristocracy, the American Revolution, etc.
I''m not a rich-American by any means. But, the America I grew up in guarantees I have just as good a chance at being one as anyone else does.
The America you liberals appear to desire is an America divided by class. Just as we see in the old world.
The Democrat Party has been using the hyphenating of America for years now to create an American version of class seperations.
I''ve seen at least two on here today who have clearly bought in hook line and sinker.
At a RATE TIPPING of 2 to 4 percent PER YEAR the EXPECTED BALANCE THIS YEAR would be the TOP THREE TENTHS of a percent NOW HOLDING approximately 25 to 30 percent OR MORE of the ENTIRE wealth of this NATION!!!
That puts the US on PAR with any number of BANANA REPUBLICS for CORRUPTION, GREED and SOCIAL IRRESPONSIBILITY and DANGEROUSLY CLOSE to the kind of REBELLION that those nations face - as soon as people start realizing that.
MAYBE THAT''''S why commentators such as Alex Jones, Websites such as Infowars.com and Movies such as "Washington Your Fired!" are becoming SO POPULAR DESPITE the MSM blackout on them.
Posted by homespunlady at 11:07 AM : Jul 09, 2008
======================
Oh my, you are all full of numbers that help you justify the armed robbery you paticipate in.
Reckon your above excuse would help my defense in my next bank robbery??
"Well you see your honor, this dang bank handles more money in an hour than I make all year long. So I felt it was my duty to steal at least two minutes worth of this cash from these evil rich folks."
----------------------------
Well, if you are not in that Wealthiest 1% that BUSH gave the tax cuts to
then YOU wil be one of those "Democratic minions"
that will receive a tax cut under the Obama administration.
Posted by frootloop47 at 10:48 AM : Jul 09, 2008
===============
Thanks for sharing the logic you Democrat minions use to justify the selling of your votes.
And, please remind me of when was the last time you ever saw a Democrat politician do the honorable thing and actually provide the largess he/she promised after they were elected??
At a RATE TIPPING of 2 to 4 percent PER YEAR the EXPECTED BALANCE THIS YEAR would be the TOP THREE TENTHS of a percent NOW HOLDING approximately 25 to 30 percent OR MORE of the ENTIRE wealth of this NATION!!!
That puts the US on PAR with any number of BANANA REPUBLICS for CORRUPTION, GREED and SOCIAL IRRESPONSIBILITY and DANGEROUSLY CLOSE to the kind of REBELLION that those nations face - as soon as people start realizing that.
MAYBE THAT''S why commentators such as Alex Jones, Websites such as Infowars.com and Movies such as "Washington Your Fired!" are becoming SO POPULAR DESPITE the MSM blackout on them.
Don''t bother giving facts to JonGood65.
His in his own state of "Morally rock solid American" pious state of bliss.
Forget about the fact that BUSH gave the TAX CUT to the Wealthiest Americans that didn''t need it. Now, Obama just wants to make things "right".
Looks like a FEW FACTS are in order s- some are below.
PRETTY OBVIOUS WHO is STEALING from WHO when the BALANCE of wealth has TIPPED SO FAR that it ENDANGERS our NATION WORSE than when it CAUSED the GREAT DEPRESSION.
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: December 15, 2007
The INCREASE in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 EXCEEDED THE TOTAL income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows.
The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while JUST THE INCREASE in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.
The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003. The total 2005 income of the three million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans, analysis of the report showed.
Earlier reports, based on tax returns, showed that in 2005 the top 10 percent, top 1 percent and fractions of the top 1 percent enjoyed their greatest share of income since 1928 and 1929.
----------------------------
Well, if you are not in that Wealthiest 1% that BUSH gave the tax cuts to
then YOU wil be one of those "Democratic minions"
that will receive a tax cut under the Obama administration.
Posted by frootloop47 at 10:21 AM : Jul 09, 2008
=================
No, I''m just a morally rock solid American.
However, from your above we can conclude that you are one of the un-Americans who willingly sell their vote in exchange for the longer suckle on the public nipple Sen. Obama is offering.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 14
- next
See all 280 Comments