Meet Matt Campbell, The Democrat Running Against Steve King In Iowa's 5th CD

All of western Iowa falls in the 5th CD, including Council Bluffs and Sioux City. It isn't just the most Republican district in the state, it's the only Republican district in the state-- and it is very Republican. In 2004 Bush took 60% of the vote, 10% better than he did statewide. And while Obama won every other CD in the state handily-- taking Iowa with 54%-- he only managed 44% in the 5th. Of the 32 counties that make up the 5th CD, Obama managed to win-- and just by the smallest of margins-- six (Crawford, Greene, Audubon, Carroll, Union and Clarke). And if the congressman from the 5th, Steve King, is nationally recognized as a racist, sociopath and dangerous extremist, back home, he's "one of us." Even though McCain "only" took 54% of the vote there, King walked away with 60%.

A few days ago I met an intrepid and progressive Democrat, Matt Campbell, who's decided to take on Steve King in November. You might ask why he just doesn't move to another district if he wants to go into politics. He's a son of five generations of Iowa farmers and currently lives on a farm that's been in his family since 1880. He's not moving anywhere. His professional career is that of a merger and acquisition and international tax consultant and he holds a J.D. from the University of Iowa College of Law and an LL.M. in taxation from the Georgetown University Law Center. Matt has over 10 years of experience in tax consulting and was a former regional lead at one of the nation's largest accounting firms. Earlier today I asked the question Shouldn't the rich pay their fair share of taxes? and it wasn't a rhetorical question. In fact it's a lot of what Matt and I discussed over the weekend. I asked him to do a guest post for DWT on the topic. If you like what you read below, keep an eye on him or consider volunteering for his campaign or making a contribution.

Modifying the Social Security Cap to Keep America’s Promise to Seniors

-By Matt Campbell, Candidate for Iowa’s 5th District Congressional Seat

Recently there is talk that Congress and the White House will take up Social Security reform. For years there has been discussion and concern regarding the solvency of the Social Security (OASDI) Trust Fund as the last five reports of the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees have indicated the Social Security Trust fund would become exhausted between 2037 and 2041.

Numerous proposals have been floated in recent years to address the long-term solvency problem and many in the GOP wish to raise the age at which seniors are eligible for social security to age 70 and to reduce social security benefits. The last report of the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees indicated: “Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years with changes equivalent to an immediate 16 percent increase in the payroll tax (from a rate of 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent) or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent or some combination of the two."

I believe that further raising the age of eligibility for benefits to age 70 or reducing the level of benefits violates a promise America has made to our seniors. The age at which full social security benefits are paid is already 66 and it will be raised to 67 in 2027. Workers in blue collar and even white collar jobs have their bodies endure a lifetime of work and it is unfair to raise the retirement age further for seniors. I similarly do not support an increase in the payroll tax to 14.4 percent. Working families are already taxed enough.

A preferred means to achieve Social Security solvency is to simply eliminate the payroll cap on wages subject to the tax, although I would include a “doughnut hole” that exempts payroll taxes on earnings between the current cap and $250,000.

In 2010, the Social Security wage base cap is $106,800 (indexed annually) and the Social Security tax is 6.20% paid by the employee and 6.20% paid by the employer. Wages above $106,800 are exempt from Social Security tax. Eliminating the cap on wages subject to social security would largely achieve solvency for the Social Security trust fund. Former Senator John Edwards proposed increasing the taxable maximum as well, but his plan only affected workers that made more than $200,000 per year. It included a “doughnut hole” that exempted payroll taxes on earnings between the current cap and $200,000. President Obama also previously suggested raising the taxable maximum and mentioned the doughnut-hole approach in some appearances. While a U.S. Senator he proposed a plan to tax wages at the normal rate up to the cap and then 0% from the cap to $250,000 and then at 12.4% on wages higher than $250,000.

Utilizing the doughnut-hole approach has merit because wage earners that make between $106,800 and my proposed $250,000 limit are frequently individuals from working class families that secured higher-salaried positions by incurring substantial amounts of college debt. The proposal also is a middle-ground compromise against arguments in the GOP that the elimination of the cap raises the marginal tax rate on such individuals. Eliminating the cap and having a doughnut hole is a much better option than raising the retirement age to 70 or reducing seniors’ Social Security benefits.