In his blog commentary on Robert Kutner’s excellent article Obama to blink first on Social Security, David Dayan (one of the better bloggers imho) adds a different perspective in what he opines may be another reason that the Obama administration will be embracing elements of the Obama created Bowles-Simpson debt commission;
I would add that the President may not just be pre-empting Paul Ryan with this move, but a bipartisan group of Senators who are basically carrying on the Catfood Commission after its demise.
It got me thinking: who are those Senators?
The group is led by Mark Warner (D-VA) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). As of last week on the floor of the Senate, the following senators professed to belong to the group:
Democrats
• Jon Tester (D-MT)
• Ron Wyden (D-OR)
• Kay Hagan (D-NC)
• Mark Udall (D-CO)
• Michael Bennet (D-CO)
• Jean Shaheen (D-NH)
• Bill Nelson (D-FL)
• Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
• Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
• Mark Begich (D-AK)
Republicans
• Roger Wicker (R-MS)
• Mike Johanns (R-NE)
• Mike Crapo (R-ID)
• James Risch (R-ID)
• Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
• Bob Corker (R-TN)
It has been reported that there are two additional Republicans in the group, but it’s likely that all 47 Republicans in the 112th Senate will vote to gut social programs wherever they can. The threat really should be focused on the Democrats in the group.
Mark Warner has made some comments on raising the retirement age for Social Security;
WARNER: I actually give the budget commission a lot of credit for, you know, putting out some hard choices. It’s kind of where the reality meets the campaign rhetoric about deficit reduction. And I think there’s a lot in the plan that I could be supportive of. Listen, some of this stuff is not Democrat or Republican. Some of it’s just math. For example, 50 years ago, eight retirees for every worker, now only two. Look, folks at 25 or 30 years old today aren’t going to get Social Security at 65 or 67. We’re going to have to raise the retirement age slowly, in a slow way that doesn’t affect folks 50, 55. But this is just math. We’ve got to do some of these things.
When candidate Obama was asked about raising the retirement age for Social Security by Tim Russert, here’s what he had to say;
MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, you said last year-earlier this year that everything should be on the table for Social Security, including looking at raising retirement age, indexing benefits, and then suddenly you said, “No, no. Those aren’t off-on the table; I’m taking them off the table.”
SEN. OBAMA: Tim, that’s not-that’s not what I said. What I said was that I will convene a meeting as president where we discuss all of the options that are available. That doesn’t mean that as president I will not have strong opinions on how we should move forward. And when you look at how we should approach Social Security, I believe that cutting retire-cutting benefits is not the right answer. I meet too many seniors all across the country who are struggling with the limited Social Security benefits that they have. That raising the retirement age is not the best option, particularly when we’ve got people who ware still in manufacturing. By the time they’re 67, their bodies, oftentimes…MR. RUSSERT: But in May you said they would be on the table.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, when I-I am going to be listening to any ideas that are presented, but I think that the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and the people who are in need are protected. That is the option that I will be pushing forward. But, look, even as president I’m not going to be able to get this done by myself, and that means that I’m going to be listening to any other ideas out there. It doesn’t mean, though, that I’m not going to have a strong position on it.
MR. RUSSERT: But they would be on the table?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, I will listen to all arguments and the best options, finding out what is it going to take to close that gap. But what I’m going to continue to insist on is that the reason we need to fix it now is precisely to protect our senior citizens and maintain not only Social Security as a social insurance program, but also make sure that the benefits are sufficient so that we don’t have seniors in need.
MR. RUSSERT: When you say “raise the cap,” right now you pay payroll tax on the first $97,500. If you increase that for people to pay Social Security tax on their full income, about 10 million people, some could pay as much as $5,000 a year more. How is that going to play in November?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, it-you know, I have not specified exactly how we would structure it. Conceivably, you might have the equivalent of a doughnut hole, although this one would be a good one, as opposed to the bad doughnut hole that Bush set up for, for prescription drugs where you have a gap between people who are of middle income and very wealthy people. But, look, I’ve, I’ve got a friend, Warren Buffett, you may know, the guy made $46 million last year. This is public information because he’s concerned that he is paying a lower tax rate than anybody else in his office. And, you know, he has said, and I think a lot of us who have been fortunate are willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that a senior citizen who is struggling to deal with rising property taxes or rising heating bills, that they’ve got the coverage that they need.
MR. RUSSERT: So you would not be afraid to say, “We have a problem with Social Security, and I’m willing to raise taxes on some to help address the?to fix it.”
SEN. OBAMA: I, I, I believe that it is important for us to look at all the options, but I think that the best option would be to make sure that those who are in the best position to help solve this problem are willing to do so.
So we have a centrist Senator that wants to raise the retirement age (as does Dick Durbin) and a candidate-turned-President that did not believe raising the retirement age is the ‘best option’ and will take a ‘strong position’ on raising the cap.
Recent Comments