E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC’s Doug Adams
Calling Social Security "broken," three Republican senators unveiled a plan Wednesday to overhaul the 75-year old entitlement program by raising the retirement age and reducing benefits for some wealthier Americans.
Two freshmen -- Tea Party Republicans Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky -- joined Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, who has been working on this issue for more than five years.
A key part of their proposal would be to gradually raise the mandatory retirement age to 70 years old by 2032.
“If you talk to young people in America - they've already accepted this,” Paul said. “I tell people ‘the knowledge has already been discounted. Young people know the age will have to go up gradually.’”
The senators also proposed "means testing" for Social Security benefits, meaning the reduction of benefits for wealthier Americans.
Under their plan, seniors making over $43,000 a year would have their monthly benefits reduced by $300 to $400 by 2032.
This year is the first year in which Social Security pays out more than it takes in, because people are living longer, and the huge wave of Baby Boomers is starting to hit retirement age.
Neither Rep. Paul Ryan’s FY2012 budget nor the deficit plans outlined by President Barack Obama to date address specifics for addressing Social Security’s long-term solvency.
Graham noted the political hazards of discussing changes to benefits for America’s retirees, saying that Paul and Lee are the only co-signatories on his proposal.
"These are the only 2 guys I could find,” he said.
Mnsbc.com's Carrie Dann contributed.
Leave a Comment:
I'm waiting for the Senate & House to overhaul their retirment packages. It doesn't seem fair that a one term Senator or House member gets a life time of retirment and health benefits. Both parties want to pick our pockets and not touch theirs.
Of course republicans want to raise the retirement rate! It keeps wages lower and maintains a higher unemployment rate, ensuring cheaper labor. Think about it, there are a finite number of jobs. If they're occupied by older workers, there are less jobs for younger workers. Thus creating a labor glut, making it an employer's market!
Means testing SS is a great idea, I've been posting that for a long time. If they means tested, it's not likely they would need to raise retirement age also. Deductions for SS would go way down, almost meaningless. No sense in giving welfare to people who don't need it, and many republicans admit they don't need SS to retire. If your income is more than what minimum wage on 40 hours would produce, then you don't need a SS check. On the other things, they should really have a law that says they have to have a war tax if a war lasts more than say 30 days. They shouldn't be able to charge them all up, constantly, perpetually, and then come back to cut social programs. Supply side economics/trickle down/tax breaks to the rich. should be stopped, it's obvious that such policies do not work, if they worked, there wouldn't be an economic crisis, recession, no budget, etc. We should return to pure, and solely, Keynes economic policies. Supply side economics is junk economics.
43K is retirement income of the wealthy? Maybe in the rural south, but not in Southern California or any other high cost area of the country. Assuming your income to be 43K, and an average SS payment of $1200, you would take a 8% hit. If the Clinton era tax rates were put upon the top 3% of earners, I wonder how much lower this would be. For those trickle down supporters, no evidence of it working has been seen since Reagan proposed the concept! What has happened, is the middle class wages have stagnated since Clinton left office (with a budget in the black) and the senior management types (3% ers) have seen their income skyrocket by a factor of 3 or more......So wake up those earning below 100K, you have been getting screwed..............
Wm, that's what I'm saying, that pensions are slowly being eroded or eliminated. One leg gone. GOP wants to ax Social Security-second leg gone with Medicare increased as some propose- will make it impossible for anyone to retire.
It is amazing. The GOP is advocating that the 'rich' give up their social security. What is it called when the government takes from the people: SOCIALISM.
If Obama or the Democrats proposed this - the right wing (and those posters on this) would be screaming bloody murder. Impeachment, find a rope and a tree, etc. But because a Republican has proposed this - they are strangely muted. Nice to know that they are not biased toward republicans...
FYI - I actually support means testing for Social Security. It is part of the 'safety net' that the republicans are trying to destroy. If you are earning more than $250K per year, you should be able to set aside sufficient to retire. If you don't need to draw Social Security in the future - then you should not.
So is the government going to force businesses to keep people on the payrolls until they are 70 instead of the current 65? Hmm. I wonder how that will work? I suspect most employers will still want people out by 65 which means people will have to support themselves fully until they can get SS. Not a good plan I'm afraid. Additionally, people earning under $43,000 have paid the same amount into SS and therefore should be entitled to received that amount back in benefits otherwise the program is no longer an insurance plan but rather a welfare program.
CA Girl12345 that's not a bad idea. Here's how I define as "means testing": when a person's retirement income is $250k or more, give them back whatever they paid into the system (plus a little interest?) and wave good bye. It's outrageous that super rich people are receiving these pathetic little SS checks, when there are desperate people who need bigger checks. I know that's not how SS started, but times have changed and we need to make some changes to SS.
Could not disagree more...bring ALL the jobs home from the Pacific Rim..the old Cold War trade routes make no sense..political or economic...lets expand the blue collar job sector..ship building...steel production..ALL auto production... and let seniors retire...perhaps even at 60...we need more jobs and upward movement...not working our people to death!!!
NO FREE TRADE WITHOUT FULL EMPLOYMENT!!
How about they quit using Social Security as a personal piggy bank. When SS started it was to be kept seperate and earn interest. Now it is just a slush fund that nobody accounts for.
Jon Kyl was recently caught shredding stolen Social Security checks in the back seat of his Hummer limousine. When asked, “why did it you do it”? he replied, “I make over 90% of my income from recycling”. This is not intended to be a factual statement.
It's about time someone had the nads to propose this. When social security was first implemented the average life expectancy was the same as the age you received full benefits. They never indexed SS for life expectancy. No wonder it will go bankrupt if they don't do something about it. This will probably raise my retirement age to close to 70, but I don't care. If you count on SS as your ultimate safety net, you didn't do a very good job of saving for retirement.
well folks,with the Congressmen starting wage of $174,000.00 a year plus free taxpayer provided Health Care,and they get reimbursed for everything and retirement that they don't pay a red cent into,they are the ultimate welfare cheats,cut their pay to $75,000.00 and expect them to actually acomplish something,the only reason anyone is getting into politics is for the guaranteed income...there are many people trying to live on $20,000.00 or less
I call the Senate "broken". Let's lower the retirement age of Senators to 55 and then ban them from lobbying until they hit the retirement age. Once they hit the retirement age, they lobby on a volunteer basis if they are looking for something to do.
When are we going to put all federal employees in to the Social Security system? That is the only way it will get fixed.
I am sure AARP will vigorously object to any of this but I think there is merit in this idea. SS has always been somewhat of an insurance policy, if you die before your time your estate gets nothing. It should be based on need and only a supplemental help.
As a society we should define what a reasonable level of income should be for one to survive on and if you are well able to take care of yourself then you need less help from SS. Of course there needs to be a limit if you need more help. If I had two million or more I could manage a reasonable life style (from the interest) with little or no help from SS if I retired at 66.
We need to do something now, set the expectation that help is variable and minimal and encourage people to plan and save for the future.
According to the Data360 tables, the life expectancy for a male will be around 76 when the retirement age is raised to 70. Great! They collect from my check every week for 55 years and will pay me for 6 years, if I live to the projected age. Doesn't seem like a good plan.
Pay 17% Contributions in (or more) plus the interest earned over 55 years and pay less than 10% out at the end . Sounds like a pretty good PONZI SCHEME to me.
So if Barney Maddoff is in JAIL for that crime, why aren't THEY?
They have tried the means test before and it didn't work. McCain needs his check to cover his 9 estates.
Ah yes I see they are still on the "Cut Entitlements" (TRUST FUND) Hogwash....yet nothing about the Military/Industrial Corporations, just about cutting the "Entitlements" and Breaking OUR Contract by raising the Retirement Age that allow US receive OUR Benefits and then give US a Corporate Senior Discount Card for Health-care.
Baloney!!!
Break OUR Contract and Rob OUR Seniors Social Security Medicare Trust Fund, off to Prison YOU GO Republo-RAT Ryan along with all the rest of your "Cheese Head" Buddies like Walker!
Their "Minions" say these are "Entitlements", all the while funneling Trillions in TAX Breaks into the Gaping Holes of these new Mega Oligarchs who are paying for all their REAL Retirement in Corporate America as PAID Flunky Lobbyist. Same with OUR "Generals", who award a lucrative "Contract" then retire and go to work with that same company they rewarded.
Otherwise like the Demo-RAT Dodd, Ex-Senator, Named Chief of Motion Picture Association ... they'll just scheme their way around the Law......... so let US use RICO and round them ALL up and put them where they belong! In those nice new shinny Private Prisons they've bought shares in!
Conflict of Interest? Absolutely! Now we need to start an Investigation of the US Chamber of Commerce for Criminal Acts of Treason and War Profiteering!
WE THE PEOPLE need a new LAW that says Elected Representatives that Pass Laws benefiting any Organization (Dodd), if they EVER then go to work for or one that receives Contributions from that same or similar Organizations GO TO JAIL for Bribery!
Not a year or ten year waiting period, close that "Loop Hole" Forever!
Vote Paul/Nader 2012 Investigate/Prosecute/Incarcerate "Word of Mouth" and "Americans in the Streets" can beat the Crooked "Politicians" "Generals" "Talking Heads and the "Robber Barons" with their Computer Generated "Sock Puppet" Minions every time!
How can anyone view these antics as anything but a tax increase? Let's stop playing
word games and get to the issues and problems and devise a solution that is
fair to all, not just the people and groups that can afford the lobbyists.
OK...here's a little real-life lesson in economics. I am a disabled American. I have been unable to work for over 8 years. Prior to that, I put myself through college, earned 2 Bachelor's degrees and paid into Social Security for over 26 years. As with all people in my situation, Medicare premiums are deducted from my monthly benefits ($96.50 per month), leaving $1042.00 per month to pay ALL my living expenses. This means rent, utilities, groceries, clothing, a car payment (plus upkeep and maintenance), insurance, gas, and co-payments for doctor visits, hospital and prescriptions.
Do the math!!!
About 90% of my clothing and household items are purchased at thrift stores. I use coupons and track the sales. I have never owned a new car, don't have a big screen TV or the latest gadgets.
Supplemental benefits such as food stamps, housing and utility assistance programs, assistance with paying Medicare premiums, and Medicaid benefits are all determined according to a "Federal poverty level" that has not been fully re-evaluated since 1982!!! I am not eligible for ANY form of assistance because I "make too much money"!!!
When I was working, I put money into both a savings account and a 401(K) every week. But I never expected I'd have to stop working 20 years before reaching retirement age. And I was recently told that the only way I could get Home Care, was if I reduced my IRA funds to less than $2,000!!! And THEN what am I to use for retirement except Social Security.
And what about the people who work at minimum-wage jobs?? Many of them are barely scraping by. How are they to save that 300K to 500K for their retirement??
Sadly, I actually do better than many people on disability. And, once I reach age 65, my benefits will be converted from disability to retirement status, and will actually be lower than they are now!!!
I would really love to challenge anyone who considers cutting these "discretionary benefits" to try living on them!!! But I'm sure we'll NEVER see that happen!!!
You need to realize that there are no simple solutions to such complex issues. And stereotyping doesn't help the problem!!
I fully agree with your opinion and points. People tend to think that anyone in your situation must be a scammer, free loader etc. In any society there will always be those who will need help due to no cause of their own. On the other end of the scale there will be those who are fortunate enough to not need any assistance, in fact they could probably stand to contribute more and still be living high on the hog.
I am an average person doing well enough, I have no problems paying into SS knowing quite well I may never get a dime of it back and that is ok. The problem I have is the waste and scamming of the system. Good luck
Thank you for your comments, Yea Right.
I actually did some additional research since my posting on the Federal Poverty level, and what I found was nothing less than appalling!!! The actual level, and the goods and services used for determination of that level, has not been re-vamped since 1955!!! So if it didn't exist in 1955, it isn't even taken into account!!!
I was born in 1957, and as a child I remember the cost of several items. For example: gas was $0.25 a gallon, my Dad used to buy 10 loaves of bread for $1.00, 10 cans of vegetables for $0.50, and when I was a teenager, I bought cigarettes for $0.35 a pack.
There were no frozen pizzas and entrees, no Kraft macaroni and cheese or Stove Top stuffing, no color TV's or cell phones. There have only been minor adjustments for inflation (emphasize "minor").
We aren't even talking apples for apples here!!!
Now, if my monthly income was $134.50 less, I would receive every type of assistance there is. Just having my Medicare premiums paid, reduces that difference to $38.00. Add in food stamps, housing assistance, etc., and someone who does meet the poverty criteria actually comes out much further ahead!! My neighbor complains that she has to pay $97.00 toward her rent...I pay $595.00!!!
Someone our Government needs to seriously take a look at the realities that everyday people live with.
How about investigating the gross over-spending by the Military. I'm not talking about people who actually serve in the military...they don't get paid nearly enough for what they put on the line every day. I'm talking about toilet seats at several hundred dollars and screws at $40+ each. There is a lot of wasted money that could be put to better use.
Or, how about if the United States stops trying to be the world's banking system. Why not start collecting on some of those "loans" given to other countries during their time of need, now that they are solvent??
Another thing...Obama isn't looking to "tax" the rich. He's looking to remove the "tax breaks" that were put in place by the previous Administration.
He did not create many of these problems...he inherited them when he took office. Actually, he was hard at work on solutions for the most immediate problems BEFORE he even took office, so that those solutions could be implemented once he did. I don't recall any President-elect working so hard during the "Lame Duck" period. People really DO have selective memories!!!
There is absolutely no "justifiable" reason why Social Security should not exist when our young workers reach their retirement age. They pay into it so it will be there as a supplemental income later in life. They should not be cheated so the rich can continue getting richer at their expense!!!
These god damn congress and senators need to KEEP THEIR DAMN HANDS OFF OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE! I don't care what the hell their political views are.........KEEP THEIR DAMN HANDS OFF! There is absolutely nothing wrong with either of those programs.........end of story!
If they want to make cuts.............cut their own salaries and benefits.........that are paid for by the taxpayers and they might want to do it BEFORE the taxpayers start acting like the protestors in other countries! I do believe the American taxpayers have been quite civil up to this point............however, the tension and anger among them IS rising.
The government and banks have STARVED american citizens out of their homes, depleted their life savings over and over and over again since the days of Reagan, and the American public has reached their boiling point!
Every government entity in this country needs to turn back the hands of time and invalidate every single one of the unconstitutional laws they have created since the mid 1970's! Again, the American public has had ENOUGH of these losers destroying our once very great nation!
dam tired of this - The problem in this country is not the politiicans but in fact us. WE THE PEOPLE are more dysfunctional than you give us credit for. We may be sick and tired of things but we are pulling in many directions at once. Look at most of these posts, we are generally attacking each other. If you look at the liberals and conservtaives they are both sick and tired but for opposing reasons therefore it should be no surprise we have a dysfunctional government... who put them in office?
Unfortunately for you and I (and I generally agree with you) nothing will change unless we can all agree on a FEW important issues that we want government to solve. I bet if you talk to 100 people one could come up with a list of 10 things that we want solved and I bet 3 or 4 of them we can all agree on, so let us solve 3 or 4 not 10.....but no we have to try and solve 10.
Really, if we debated less and actually looked at the numbers, we would be forced to see the inevitability of doing something that includes deferring benefits to a later age and means testing to stop giving benefits to people that do not need them. However, if we refuse to look at the numbers, we can argue into the next century (but, the system will have longed passed away).
The most obvious simple step that would go a long way to fixing SS would be to eliminate the cut off at $106,800. Currently, any income above that level is not charged any SS tax. Just get rid of the limit!
Eliminate the Congressional retirement program and make them take social security... bet the cuts and means test would go away real quick. Easy for those that don't participate the average Joe's program to cut and trim while their program keeps getting better.
Guess I could run for Congress and hopefully get elected and on the gravy train, humm....
I can only get behind this if my SSI rates drop dramatically and/or I'm given the ability to opt out of the plan entirely. These ideas permanently cement Social Security into our social fabric and a redistributive entitlement.
Tea baggers pretty soon will have to eat their tea bags 'cause food will be unaffordable