WASHINGTON — “The West Wing,” a popular television show about a fictional president and his staff, in 2000 devoted parts of several episodes to the political drama surrounding the need to shore up Social Security.
Even back then, the shaky financial framework was showing stress for a program that helps nearly 69 million Americans too old to continue working.
Almost a quarter century later, Washington is seeking a solution that is still being delayed by toxic politics.
Now, however, the day of reckoning is no longer in the theoretically distant future. If something is not done soon, benefits will be cut by 24% in 2034, the Congressional Budget Office and the Social Security Administration independently predicted.
Social Security annually costs about $1.2 trillion, or 19% of the federal government’s yearly spending. The financial structure was set up in 1935 for younger workers, through payroll taxes, to fund the retirements of their elders. But the number of births has been dropping while the number of people approaching retirement age has been increasing, fueling the dilemma.
Social Security won’t collapse. But unless Congress acts, the trust fund that supports the program soon will become insolvent, triggering laws that will automatically decrease monthly benefits and increase taxes.
Republicans and Democrats have fought for decades over various fixes, including raising the retirement age and privatizing the federal program. But the proposals are intensely opposed by seniors who vote, leading politicians to duck the issue whenever possible.
However, U.S. Sens Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, and Angus King, No Party-Maine, have run toward the burning issue.
They want to endow a separate fund that can invest in the private market and use those profits to keep the Social Security Trust Fund from going insolvent. Cassidy said the endowment would not use the payroll taxes that support Social Security but would use other pools of money, such as, maybe the sale of unused federal assets, possibly tax increases or even borrowed funds.
Democratic House members have also entered the politically fraught fray. Their Social Security 2100 Act would raise more than $4.5 trillion essentially by increasing taxes and removing tax breaks, such as the loophole that allows the very wealthy to avoid paying the payroll taxes that support Social Security.
Perhaps underlining the partisan flavor of anything that touches Social Security, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies, D-New York, led off Tuesday’s announcement by name checking Donald Trump and lumping the extreme right’s position with the Make America Great Again slogan embraced by many Republicans. “Democrats want to strengthen and protect Social Security; that is what Social Security 2100 is all about. On the other hand, extreme MAGA Republicans want to end Social Security as we know it,” Jefferies said.
Trump has smacked down Republicans who have said Social Security is not an entitlement.
During his State of the Union speech in February, President Joe Biden deftly turned catcalls by unruly Republicans into them having to stand to show that they would neither gut nor diminish Social Security.
Cassidy says the president’s move that night, while great political theater, effectively undermined bipartisan support for the idea he and King had forwarded. No Democrat is going to oppose the position of a Democratic president, Cassidy said.
“This is the essential point. These are not bargaining chips. These are people,” said the bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. John Larson, a Democrat who represents Hartford, Connecticut, the home of some the nation’s largest insurance companies.
The wording of this year’s version of Social Security 2100 hasn’t been released. But it is said to be very close to previous version that Biden embraced during his campaign, Cassidy said.
The legislation would largely rely on a $4.5 trillion tax bump, Cassidy said.
He points to an analysis by The Heritage Foundation, a D.C-based think tank, finding that the previous version of Social Security 2100 would add about $1,200 per year for a total of $8,400 in payroll taxes for workers making $50,000 annually. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, another D.C.-based policy think tank, determined that the Democrats’ proposed $4.5 trillion infusion pushes insolvency further into the future, but does not address Social Security’s structural flaws.
Cassidy commended Larson and the Democrats for reopening the conversation about fixing Social Security. Though the ideas differ dramatically, there are agreements that can be hammered out in negotiations.
“I am very pleased they have a plan. But if you ask me, I’d say it’s not a realistic answer,” Cassidy said Wednesday. “I will work with (Larson).”
Leave a Reply