House Democrats Unveil Social Security Expansion Bill With Unprecedented Support

[workinclasszero]

Rep. John Larson believes his plan to increase benefits will pass the House.

By Daniel Marans POLITICS 01/30/2019 08:45 am ET

In less than a decade, mainstream Democrats in Congress have gone from entertaining Social Security cuts to almost universally endorsing the program’s expansion.

With Democrats in charge of the House for the first time since this tidal shift upended party orthodoxy, senior members of Congress are setting the stage for the legislative chamber to increase Social Security benefits, bringing a onetime liberal pipe dream a step closer to law.

Democratic Reps. John Larson (Conn.), Conor Lamb (Pa.) and Jahana Hayes (Conn.) are introducing the Social Security 2100 Act on Wednesday, legislation that would expand Social Security benefits across the board and prolong the program’s solvency for the next 75 years and beyond. The legislation finances a more generous benefit and cost-of-living adjustment formula, a reduction in income taxes on benefits and the closure of Social Security’s long-term funding gap by lifting the cap on income subject to payroll taxes and raising those tax rates.

The bill is being rolled out on the 137th birthday of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who established Social Security as part of his New Deal in 1935.

The bill already has the support of more than 200 House Democrats, including House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D), who relied on Social Security payments to help pay for college after his father died.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-larson-expand-social-security-bill-pass-house_us_5c50f4fee4b0f43e410c06e9

[Buckeyeblue]

1. But since this helps ordinary people, Republicans will be against it.

But I predict that 45 gets behind it. Just a hunch. He might offer to trade this for the wall. Might be a tempting deal...Or maybe not.

Sounds like a good 2020 issue to run on.

[ooky]

4. McConnell will never put it to the floor.

But the House needs to go ahead and pass the bill so that Americans can see what the future holds for them if they elect Dems to a trifecta in 2020.

[workinclasszero]

6. +1

Yes the Democratic House should pass it and let the GOP Senate kill it, if that's what the bastards will (undoubtedly) do.

Show the American electorate exactly who is on their side and who is on the side of the filthy rich!

Lay it all out for 2020 to mute the Fox noise/hate radio propaganda ahead of time!

[DirtEdonE]

13. The Democratic House needs to keep passing the bill

And keep sending it to the senate so people can see over and over again just who and what the problem is. That's the way the did it in the old days. Vote it through and send it up until mcconnell and the rest of the GOP traitors in the senate choke on it.

[workinclasszero]

22. 100% agree!

[FBaggins]

26. That wouldn't work quite the way you expect

When the House passes a bill, it's viable until the end of the term unless the Senate takes it up and votes it down.

Instead, the Senate will let it die in committee (perhaps with hearings, perhaps without, depending on how they view the optics). There wouldn't be any reason for the House to pass it again.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

31. That's why Republicans kept passing bills to repeal ACA.

It played to their base, and they knew it wouldn't harm anyone, as Obama would veto them all.

That was good right-wing PR.

So Dems can do this. The difference: if this one actually passed and got signed, nobody would get hurt. Even high-wage workers wouldn't notice that the SS deduction didn't stop at some point in the year. They make enough to not worry about it.

[ehrnst]

40. It's important to remember the criticism that we heaped on the GOP for

calling dozens of votes for "repeal and replace" that they knew would never make it to POTUS's desk.

[Caliman73]

62. True. The difference is that this bill actually helps almost every poor and middle class person.

The Republicans had a base of really stupid people who bought into the whole "Obamacare is horrible" BS even though most people liked the ACA and the benefits in the bill.

We scorned the Republicans because they were wasting everyone's time in voting on a bill that was harmful to others, that they knew would not make it in the Senate of past the veto.

This bill is about expanding benefits without much cost to anyone other than the wealthier among us. If the Democrats can talk it up correctly, it may get more people out to vote and in 2020 we can really pass it.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

16. and keep passing pro-citizen bills

That should be demonstrated over and over:

"Show the American electorate exactly who is on their side and who is on the side of the filthy rich!"

[workinclasszero]

23. Exactly!

[MyOwnPeace]

34. Another point to press...........

this bill only came about BECAUSE it is now a Democratic House. It never would have come out of Cubby Paul Ryan's House, even though it was Social Security benefits that Paul Ryan was able to use after the loss of his Father.

[workinclasszero]

35. Yup

Ryan another POS hypocrite libertarian that benefited from ...gasp!... social(ism) security then tried like hell to destroy it!

[world wide wally]

47. McConnell is the true enemy of the people

[malaise]

64. Expos him with Internet ads

And every time a Dem is on radio/TV, mention it.

[Cosmocat]

20. YEP

nm

[FBaggins]

24. Well... it helps ordinary people after they retire

Those that are still working would see 20% increases in their FICA tax (and possibly a pay cut to pay for their employers' 20% increase).

[haele]

32. More like 5% if the cap is lifted, not 20%. Which is what this bill proposes.

5% of 2% isn't a huge increase. And if they do the same to Medicare for "Medicare for all", more people will be able to afford their health care also.

Health care and pensions/old age insurance will cost money anyway. As most Americans pre-1950 well understood. Mortality was pretty high, and my mom remembers walking to school once when she was 7 or so - back in 1945/46 - and seeing the homeless neighborhood drunk "asleep" - or rather dead - in the street before the coroner could come out and carry the body off. Her mother painfully died a few years later of what was even then preventable and treatable cancer with surgery because as working class folks, they just didn't have the money, and there was no Social Security Survivor's benefit for the kids to help Pappy cope, even though both her mom and dad had Social Security numbers and both worked until her mom got sick.

I look at SSI and FICA as a way of insuring that not only will there be a safety net, but that everyone has "skin in the game" to maintain a healthy society. If you're getting a valuable service for the taxes, even a delayed service, it's a good thing.

Haele

[FBaggins]

46. The bill proposes BOTH a FICA rate increase and lifting the cap

5% of 2% isn't a huge increase.

Not sure where those figures come from. The current FICA rate is 6% for the employer and 6% for the employee. A 1.2% increase in the rate for each is an overall 20% increase in dollars paid.

[watoos]

33. Where do you get the 20%?

The article says that the bill proposes a 1.2% increase in FICA taxes. The FICA tax is really like an insurance policy as the article states, that people should not be upset in paying if they are going get reimbursed when they retire.

[FBaggins]

43. 1.2% is 1/5th of the current 6% FICA

Thus a 20% increase

[oldsoftie]

53. I don't like reducing it to a simple "x%" increase. That always used to make things sound worse.

I remember in Ga, when they raised the sales tax from 3 to 4%, the opposition screamed about a "33% tax hike!!!!"

[watoos]

67. Ah, I see, statistics don't lie.

I see a similar use of statistics on TV every day now when cable news anchors use % of Trump's base favor this and that. The thing is that Trump's base is shrinking and he is being left with his hard core supporters.
As Trump voters leave him the % of his base who support something is going to go up but the actual number is less. I guess I'm off topic but it is clever to use 20% instead of 1.2%. both numbers are correct.

[Texin]

36. Let me tell you, the very, very well off sign up for Social Security and Medicare

and take full advantage of both programs. They may not need it, but they'd damned well be pissed off if it ever got taken away from them. Many of the diehard MAGAts would stroke out if anybody put their hands on those benefits. The major reason the rethugs have not won that battle of cutting benefits or doing away with them altogether is because their own base would ride their asses out of the Congress on a burning rail. So I say, let the Dems announce this proudly and loudly, on the airwaves and in the Twitterverse, and let the rethugs squirm as the people give them hell for not making it happen and to override tRump's veto. Let them be the ones to be exposed for the modern robber barons who can only enact legislation FOR their .01%+ and, of course, their Russian masters.

[Cold War Spook]

37. You are correct.

People do not realize that an employer knows how much it will cost to have an employee. Besides their pay, there is Social Security, maybe health insurance, workers comp plus other things I don't know about since I was never an employer. If the total is $20/hour first they subtract everything that is not the pay and that is what the employee gets. If anything goes up, the employee's pay probably won't go down but the next raise will be lower of not at all. I hope I made sense.

[FBaggins]

44. Essentially correct

I doubt that many employers would outright reduce takehome pay to offset the payroll tax increase... but you can bet that over the following year or two average raises would total about 1.2% less than they otherwise would.

[NickB79]

58. 50 cents a week in higher taxes per the article

Oh noes!

[TexasBushwhacker]

60. That's wrong though

A person making $50K a year makes $962 a week. 1.2% if that is $11.54 a week, not 50 cents.

[FBaggins]

61. Both are correct

He proposes phasing in the increase over 24 years.

The full increase would be $23/week (including the employer)... but the first year would be .50/week if you only look at the half you pay directly.

[TexasBushwhacker]

63. Ah, I forgot about the phase in

I certainly makes sense to phase it in over time, but I think 24 years is needlessly long. Phase it in over 12 years at .1% per year.

[DownriverDem]

28. What it will show

Most we the people already know this, but it will show those who might have voted repub in the past just what bastards repubs are.

[doompatrol39]

2. Excellent news....

...just as we finally seem to be coming around to accurately explaining top marginal tax rates, I'm hoping this means we are going to start explaining more clearly that Social Security and Medicaire have nothing to do with the deficit and should be expanded not cut.

If we didn't by now learn that deficits don't matter and the only people who ever say they do are Republicans when Democrats are in charge or the Very Serious™ people in the media.

[workinclasszero]

3. Yes!

Deficits ONLY matter to republicans when democrats want to do something that benefits the average American citizen!

All the GOP deficit hawks disappear when its time to blow up the deficit in service to the 1% and business!!!!

That was made abundantly clear with Dump's failed Tax cut for the rich!

[watoos]

10. Social Security doesn't contribute to the debt

It is self funded.

[doompatrol39]

11. 2 separate thoughts/ideas.....

.....
1) Hammer home that SS and Medicare don't contribute to the deficit.

2) Hammer home the hypocrisy of Republicans who only care about deficits when it helps anyone other than the super rich.

The both intertwine when it comes to messaging.

[watoos]

38. Medicare for all is a lot different than single payer health care.

I have Medicare and I pay a monthly premium which is deducted from my SS. I also pay a small deductible, and Medicare doesn't cover all of the costs of health care, it only covers around 80%.

Single payer health care like say Canada has, pays for everything, or pretty much everything.

[doompatrol39]

45. Uh....I know?

I didn't say anything related to Medicare for all vs. Single Payer.

[littlemissmartypants]

12. Bears repeating :

Social Security doesn't contribute to the debt
It is self funded.

[SunSeeker]

5. K & R

[MFGsunny]

7. K & R ... + 1,000,000

[bigbrother05]

8. That's the same survivor benefits that Paul Ryan used

even though as an heir to a family business they probably didn't really need them, but the GOP always says SS is an "entitlement" so it's ok.

[4139]

9. Social Security Enhancement ... not an expansion

Not adding people, just enhancing SS.

[Recursion]

14. I'd rather talk about lowering the retirement age, but this is still great

Glad to see Congress remembering it exists.

[Hortensis]

19. Just a guess, but thinking we're a lot more likely to see

a universal basic income for all rather than lowering the retirement age in an era when people are living, and often choosing to work, much longer. Lowering the retirement age would specifically encourage age discrimination, which is already a severe national problem and devastating to many millions.

Notably, Hillary already believed in the need for a UBC in 2016, just didn't think she had the "numbers" to do it, and everything else, then.

[Recursion]

21. Andrew Yang 2020!

As of now he's the only UBI proponent in the race.

[Hortensis]

25. :) Wait. Hope. Unfortunately, we're not in as good a position

as Obama's administration left us in, and that probably has a great deal to do with it. The GOP has spent/transferred huge amounts of our national wealth and run up huge national debt -- undoubtedly not just with the usual intent of devastating our existing social programs but also of delaying what under continued Democratic control would otherwise have been an inevitable move to a UBC whose time has come.

[Cold War Spook]

41. Don't really know about lowering the retirement age.

It should help people looking for a job. If you do retire young, I retired in 1995, you better have enough to do and the money to do it. I am 75 and if it wasn't for VA 100% service connected disability and our Social Security I would not be enjoying retirement.

[biglib63]

15. Lamb is my rep...

I worked for him, and was a little put out that he didn't vote for Pelosi. I am over it.

[Power 2 the People]

17. Great start to the session!

[Moostache]

18. While I welcome the support of Chairman Richard Neal...

and find his tale of being able to use SS benefits to manage college after losing his father, the reality of 2019 is SS benefits won't cover one class and books now let alone assist a student in making it through a 4-year undergrad degree.

Education funding and reform is a vital conversation for the nation to be having 10 years AGO, but every year we let another group of young people drown into life crippling debt chasing an education is a another year further behind we end up.

Expanding the social security net needs to be a holistic plan to garner the broadest support and to become a true national priority. We need to challenge each other more on just what exactly does citizenship MEAN instead of arguing over pointless walls and just talking about we will deny citizenship status to. To me, without a vibrant and functioning social safety net and future-oriented plan, we don't have a country, we have a geographical location and a bunch of people looking to put one over on us. THAT kind of "america" is not worth bothering to save.

[xmas74]

48. As the parent of a college student

Social security benefits would help us out a bit. My daughter's father passed on several years ago. She received SS survivor benefits until she graduated from high school. The month she graduated was her last SS payment. And living in Missouri means that she would also lose her Medicaid benefits upon her 19th birthday. I have her covered now with insurance through my employer but it's an additional expense that is part of a budget with less money coming in.

My daughter is a scholarship student. Between scholarships, Pell and MO Access/Bright Flight her tuition and books are covered. An extension of SS would help cover incidentials such as gas to drive to the campus, activity and lab fees, basic supplies, car insurance, maybe the occasional cafeteria meal during finals week when she can't leave campus, clothes for her classes and nicer outfits for when she has her internship, some living expenses while during her internship, etc. There are so many things that must be paid for outside of tuition and books and if she was still able to receive SS it would be much easier for her to afford them.

[oldsoftie]

57. We also need to stop pushing college so hard on everyone. Technical school is a great option.

And a HELLUVA lot cheaper. Graduate with little to no debt, and work a skilled job that pays very well. College has become a status symbol to so many. And many times its more the PARENTS than the students. And these days, a Bachelors degree isnt a big deal; "everyone" is getting their MASTERS now. MORE money. The cost of college rises faster than the cost of healthcare!

80% of the wealthiest people I know don't have college degrees at all.

[IronLionZion]

27. Democrats are being very liberal

when Republicans control the Senate. I guess they've been inspired to be bold now and then shame the GOP come election time for blocking it.

[MagicPond]

29. Link

Does anyone have a link to the proposed bill?

[workinclasszero]

30. Right here

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1902/text

and ...

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1902/BILLS-115hr1902ih.pdf

[zentrum]

39. Fantastic. A ray of hope.

[BamaRefugee]

42. Everything Dems put forward has to have all kinds of bulletproofing built in to prevent future...

Republican skullfu*kery!

[Fritz Walter]

49. Wait, what? REDUCTION in income tax on benefits?

How about eliminating the tax on this “income” stream, especially for beneficiaries who depend on this monthly stipend for survival? Especially when Medicare Part B premiums are withheld after tax. (A whole other topic, for which I’ll save for another post).


It wasn’t until Ronnie Raygun got into the Oval Office that this tax was imposed upon seniors, his contemporaries (at least chronologically, if not demographically). Now it is deeply ingrained into the federal budget, but if this proposed bill is already likely to arrive DOA on the Senate floor, why quibble over a matter of principle?
In for a penny...

[ProfessorPlum]

50. YES!

[beachbum bob]

51. nice idea, won't get a vote in the Senate or trumps signature

[at140]

59. Maybe not, but it gives us wonderful satisfaction that

We at least made an effort in the right direction.

[enid602]

52. Tax law

Too bad Trump’s tax law reduces government receipts by so much.

[oldsoftie]

54. Actually, it didnt.

Govt tax revenues are at an all time high.
Of course, without the cuts, they'd probably be even higher

[enid602]

55. Tax law

There’s just so much conflicting information. Obama’s last deficit was $200B. Trump’s first was 700B. This past year was $1T. He’s requested authorization from Congress for a $1.5T deficit in ‘19. I thought this is due to his tax law.

[oldsoftie]

56. Income tax revenues are up, but so is spending. As usual. But revenues SHOULD be up,

because we arent in a recession. The country gets larger every year, so every year we are expanding, we should also collect more income taxes. So without the tax cuts, the govt would STILL have likely gotten record receipts.
And even with the record revenues, an even larger number of people than before don't pay ANY income taxes (but thats another OP!).
Corporate revenues were down, which was also expected because they got the biggest tax cut.

[enid602]

71. Tax law

I would counter that revenues arre going down, as the richest 15000 citizens are averaging $75 millón in annual ax savings. The tax benefit to corporations is incalculable. This tax law is the biggest income redistribution scheme in US history.

[oldsoftie]

72. In '18, income tax revenues were up, corporate taxes were down.

And of course, govt spending was also up

Edit: I guess its too early for the whole FY18

[joshcryer]

65. This is chained CPI with a cap raise and a poverty exception.

It's never passing the Senate, of course.

But it's the best plan we have.

[pansypoo53219]

66. KILL the cap KILL the cap!

[JT45242]

68. Why the rate increase?

Everything I have ever read about Social Security would be that it would be solvent and could increase benefits simply by lifting the cap on earnings.

Because they did not do the simple solution, they left a cap -- they just move it to $400K.

Please, let's push them to do this the right way and simply remove the cap. All the improvements can be made and the tax rate on middle class folks won't have to go up.

Moving the rate to $400K, just means that someone making $1 million(super wealthy) is only paying social security on the first 40% so they get a 60% tax break over poor, middle class, and wealthy.

It is an improvement, but it still isn't right. It still gives preferential treatment to the super wealthy.

[Honeycombe8]

69. As a senior, I am 100% in favor this, IF we can pay for it.

But I don't see how this passes. We'll see.

We need to win in 2020 and take over the Senate!!!

[StarzGuy]

70. I wish those dems well but...

...there is virtually no chance that this bill will survive especially in the Senate run by pukes. As a retired person with disabilities I rely on my Social Security BENEFIT, that I paid in my entire working life. I struggle every day financially because the amount I receive along with my small federal pension just isn't sufficient to cover my expenses. I lost my home back in the early 2000's due to a serious illness. Though I managed to right my ship for a few years ultimately my illnesses peaked and I had to retire on disability. Then after a few years receiving disability benefits my federal pension benefit was cut by nearly $200 per month as I reached 62.5 years old when my pension was moved to regular retirement. Needless to say, that cut continues to cause me to become food insecure and unable to pay monthly bills. I depend on my local food bank and help from my best friend to at least survive. This is no way to live. I often wonder why I continue to...

So, I wish those dems good luck but I will not be holding my breath regarding this bill ever becoming law. Can you just imagine trump signing such a bill into law? Not gonna happen...