Hillary Clinton on Social Security Expansion: Words are Wind. A Cold Wind.

[portlander23]

Hillary Clinton on Social Security Expansion: Words are Wind. A Cold Wind.
Lambert Strether
Naked Capitalism

Here’s the baseline for the left on Social Security. From The Nation:

With boomers retiring without pensions or adequate savings, progressives have proposed expanding Social Security benefits …[3]. Obama, by contrast, has proposed cutting Social Security benefits as part of a “grand bargain” with the Republicans on deficit reduction, a position greatly appreciated on Wall Street. Clinton, like all Democratic candidates, will promise to protect Social Security, but will she support expanding it?

Clinton’s Views on Social Security Expansion

And from the first Democratic debate (October 13, 2015):

CLINTON: Well, I fully support Social Security. And the most important fight we’re going to have is defending it against continuing Republican efforts to privatize it.

BASH: Do you want to expand it?

CLINTON: I want to enhance the benefits for the poorest recipients of Social Security. We have a lot of women on Social Security, particularly widowed and single women who didn’t make a lot of money during their careers, and they are impoverished, and they need more help from the Social Security system.

And I will focus — I will focus on helping those people who need it the most. And of course I’m going to defend Social Security. I’m going to look for ways to try to make sure it’s solvent[5] into the future.

What do words like “fully support” and “defend” mean? Do they mean “expand”? I’m guessing no, since Clinton could have answered “Yes” to the moderator who asked her the direct question. And while we’re at it, why isn’t the best defense a good offense? Surely the best way to “defend” Social Security would be to expand it? (And again, mentally mark down the underlined words “the poorest recipients,” “they need more help” and “those people who need it the most.”)

Issues with Clinton’s Views on Social Security

To begin, remember the words I asked you to mentally mark down? (To review: “especially for women,” “our most vulnerable”, “the poorest recipients,” “they need more help” and “those people who need it the most.”) Think about it: They all imply that Clinton wishes to introduce Social Securiyt benefits that are defined using eligibility requirements (“especially,” “most vulnerable,” “poorest”, “need”). That is, Clinton proposes to convert Social Security from a universal program of social insurance to a welfare program. This is a poisoned chalice that will destroy Social Security as we know it. Social Security should not be means-tested:

Medicare and Social Security are not handouts to the needy. They are not even intended to be a safety net. In their design, they promote the fundamental notion that dignity and good health in old age are not special privileges that can be bestowed or taken away. They are fundamental rights that every working American who has contributed productively to the economy can expect to enjoy. As James K. Galbraith told me in an email, “It’s insurance, not charity.”

Make no mistake: If means-testing on the wealthy is allowed, conservatives will keep pushing until that same means-testing is applied to the middle class, who increasingly must rely on Social Security and Medicare in times of economic uncertainty and job insecurity.

Now let’s look at something Clinton isn’t mentioning today, but has mentioned in the past: A commission, that favorite device in official Washington for diverting hard choices to an unaccountable body. Here’s Clinton in a campaign 2008 debate, at Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA (October 30, 2007):

A: I have said consistently that my plan for Social Security is fiscal responsibility first, then to deal with any long-term challenges. We would have a bipartisan commission. All of these would be considered. I do not want to balance Social Security on the backs of our seniors & middle-class families.

Well, if you want to know what Clinton stands for, one approach — I can’t come up with Clinton’s own views on Chained CPI — is to find out what the famed Clinton network thinks:

As for chained CPI being a “Boehner-McConnell demand,” referring to House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, this echoes a talking point made by the White House. McConnell did mention chained CPI in a television interview as an indication that Obama was serious about reducing mandatory spending; Boehner implicitly referenced in a letter to Obama by urging a proposal, along the lines of a new plan advanced by Erskine Bowles, as an “imperfect, but fair middle ground.” Bowles, incidentally, is a Democrat and former chief of staff to Clinton.

(A) prominent Democrat was a driving force behind the development of the concept, and others, such as Bowles, have embraced it, as well. … Opponents of chained CPI would do better to drop the partisan attacks and acknowledge that some Democrats are as responsible for promoting chained CPI as Republicans.

In summary:

• Clinton will not commit to Social Security expansion
• Clinton would like to turn Social Security into a welfare program, destroying it
• Clinton would like a Social Security Commission, and past such commissions have produced unconscionable results.

The words: “As President, I’ll expand Social Security” would be very simple to say. Clinton should consider saying them. I can’t imagine why it’s so hard.

Lots more detail at the link, far too much to cite.

Mrs. Clinton has definitely not committed to expanding social security and she has made comments that would indicate a plan to add means testing. As far as a commission, to the best of my knowledge she has not called for that in 2015, though there was this interview with one of her one of her aides in July:

He again brings up "targeting" or means testing and agrees that a "bipartisan" solution is needed, though not specifically a commission.

In August, Brett Bursey (South Carolina Progressive Network Director) asked John Podesta about Clinton's position on Social Security, and while the audio is not great he seems to be saying the campaign has "specific ideas" and ways to pay for them.

I'm having a pretty hard time finding any specifics on Mrs. Clinton's position that don't date back to the 2008 race. Here's one sorta positive article:

Hillary Clinton got one thing very right about Social Security -- but not everything
Michael Hiltzik
LA Times

On this little-understood point, she is absolutely right. Although Social Security is designed to be gender-neutral, women, and especially widows and single women, are the group it serves most poorly. The poverty rate among elderly widows is as much as four times that of elderly married women. That's true for several reasons.

Clinton didn't propose any specific remedies for this enduring problem, but her focus on it is encouraging. That said, she left many Social Security advocates feeling a tad uneasy by stating, "I'm going to look for ways to try to make sure (Social Security is) solvent into the future." That's a formula that could embrace both revenue increases from, say, raising or eliminating the cap on the payroll tax (it applies this year only to the first $118,500 of wages), or cutting benefits — "a double-edged sword," in the words of Eric Laursen, the author of "The People's Pension," a history of Social Security.

Sanders and O'Malley don't leave themselves that wiggle room. Both have come out explicitly for raising the tax cap and increasing benefits for all retirees as a way to make up for the erosion of retirement resources from such traditional sources as employer pensions and personal savings.

For now, the largest indicators of Mrs. Clinton's plans, besides the allusions towards means testing and leaving the door open for raising the retirement age, is what she's not saying. She's not for expanding benefits.


Related:

Sanders offers Social Security as latest example of ‘many, many differences’ with Clinton

Clinton did not categorically rule out Social Security benefit cuts or raising the retirement age

Say It Ain't So, Hillary Clinton - You're Open to the Idea of Raising the Retirement Age?

A Trojan Horse In Clinton’s Pledge To “Enhance” Social Security?

Why It's Misleading to Swear to Protect the Poor's Social-Security Benefits

[monmouth4]

1. She's going to screw up, I just know it. This was was a careless remark and has turned

many retirees off. I hope I'm right..