Biden Would Be The Worst Politician For Social Security-- Not Just The Worst Democrat-- The Worst Anything

You want candidates to make a pledge? Ask Biden to pledge he won't try making another Grand Bargain with the Republicans to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits

You've read about Trump's $2.2 trillion deficit (almost 7% of GDP); that's unheard of outside of a world war and, in this case, it's a gigantic political waste that is not going to anything worthwhile, which is what the Green New Deal, for example, would be. Trump's deficits aren't about investing in the country; they're about making the rich richer and bolstering Trump's reelection chances with economic numbers that do not reflect sustainable economic growth.

Meanwhile, Trump's Regime hasn't even thought about doing anything to bolster Social Security, which absolutely needs tending too. Yesterday, Jed Graham at Investor's Business Daily, wrote that "If you're 50 or younger, there's a very good chance your Social Security deal-- the taxes you pay or benefits you earn-- will change. That's because you'll turn 62, the youngest age for claiming benefits, just as the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to run dry. CBO expects the trust fund, which now holds $2.9 trillion worth of nonmarketable Treasury securities, to be depleted by 2031. Social Security's own actuaries think that won't happen until 2035. But that's based on optimistic economic projections that have real GDP growing 25% faster than CBO expects over the coming the decade (2.2% vs. 1.75% per year). The trust fund represents surplus payments made to Social Security from 1984 to 2009, plus interest. Trust fund balances, as long as they exist, empower Social Security to run deficits in order to keep paying all scheduled benefits. Once the trust fund is gone, CBO projections show that it would take a 25% benefit cut to balance Social Security's books. That means a one-fourth cut for everyone, from the very oldest retirees to the poorest and disabled. Social Security Administration projections aren't quite as harsh, but still envision a 20% across-the-board cut. Abrupt cuts of that sort won't happen. No politician who wants to get re-elected would ever vote for it."

Out of 235 Democrats in the House, 203 are now co-sponsoring John Larson's Social Security 2100 Act (H.R.860). The bill guarantees that Social Security is solvent for the rest of the 21st Century, increases benefits and guarantees that cost of living adjustments are more accurate and less likely to allow buying power of Social Security checks to be eroded by inflation. It is likely to pass the House next month. McConnell, screeching "socialism," has already indicated that he will not allow a vote in the Senate at all.

As I've mentioned before, at the behest of scumbag billionaires, Republicans and conservative Democrats have made sure that Congress has been unable to add new protections and increases in benefits for over half a century. In the run-up to the 2018 midterms, a PPP survey found that 66% of voters said that they were more likely to back candidates who support "expanding and increasing Social Security benefits." Two years earlier a poll by Pew Research found that even Trump supporters overwhelmingly agreed that Social Security benefits should not be decreased. And except for neo-liberal Status Quo Joe, all the Democratic presidential candidates have pledged to support expanding Social Security, not just Bernie and Elizabeth Warren, but also Beto, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, etc.

Biden's always been a completely worthless piece of shit and an enemy of Social Security. A proud neoliberal, he was calling for a spending freeze on Social Security and a higher Social Security retirement age since the 1980s. He always embraced GOP bullshit about balancing the budget, something Republicans are only for while Democrats are in power. Biden's one of the morons who has always fallen for the trap and has always been the first Democrat in any circumstance to advocate raising the wait to screw working families with Austerity, which is just what anyone supporting his presidential race should be ready for if he wins. Sacrificing people dependent on Medicare and Social Security was something Biden seemed as enthusiastic about as Paul Ryan was... [T]here are indications that another "grand bargain" may be in the cards should Biden win the presidency. In a speech last year at a joint event held by the Brookings Institution and the Biden Foundation, Biden said, "Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code. What’s the first thing he decided we needed to go after? Social Security and Medicare. We need to do something about Social Security and Medicare." Biden suggested the programs should be means tested, and would require "adjustments," like raising the retirement age, something the GOP and Biden see eye to eye on. OK, back to Jed Graham:

The essential financing challenge facing Social Security is the aging of the population. People are living longer in retirement and the growth of the workforce has slowed. In 2009, the last year Social Security ran a surplus, there were still three workers paying into Social Security for every beneficiary. That has slipped to 2.8 workers per beneficiary and will keep sliding to 2.2 by 2036.

Yet the biggest challenge in fixing the future of Social Security is that the retirement safety net isn't very generous to begin with. Consider that someone with average career earnings (today's equivalent of $52,000 a year) will get about 40% of wages replaced by Social Security. That's about $20,800 per year. But that respectable annual payout only applies to those who retire at the official retirement age, soon to be 67. Those who retire at 62 will face a 30% early-retirement penalty each year, cutting their payout to $14,560. Some may have to retire early due to a bad job market if the economy softens. Some might have to care for an ill parent. Others may struggle to stay in physically demanding jobs.

To top it off, living longer in retirement means that people may deplete their personal savings. Even before any kind of benefit cuts, many will be increasingly dependent on an insufficient Social Security check.

In the age of Trump, Republicans have barely made a peep about cutting Social Security benefits. It's hard to see austere visions of Social Security reform making a comeback.

Democrats, for their part, have pitched Social Security benefit increases in recent years. They've slammed the door on talk of benefit cuts.

It may sound like pie in the sky, but there are two Democratic proposals to pay for those dreams. Bernie Sanders is known for his support of Medicare for all, phasing out private health insurance. But the 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful also has a Social Security fix.

The Sanders plan involves a pretty huge tax hike of about $150 billion in the first year. Sanders would apply a 6.2% tax on investment income for upper earners. That would hike the top capital gains tax rate from 23.8% to 30%. In addition, Sanders would apply the 12.4% payroll tax rate on earnings above $250,000.

Sanders would devote about 40% of the extra revenue to expanding benefits, mainly for lower earners. The other 60% would go to improving Social Security's finances.

[T]he Social Security 2100 Act would go further to make the program sustainable. The legislation, which has more than 200 House co-sponsors, would apply the full Social Security payroll tax to earnings over $400,000. It also would gradually increase the 12.4% payroll tax rate to 14.8%, raising it one-tenth of a percentage point each year. The 2.4-percentage-point hike would be shared by business and employees. The act devotes close to 20% of the revenue to expanding benefits, including a more generous annual cost-of-living adjustment.

Democrats gave a stiff arm to President George W. Bush in 2005 when he put Social Security reform atop his agenda. Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats thundered against his plan to let people invest a portion of their Social Security taxes. Yet even after Bush dropped personal accounts, they refused to come to the table. Democrats wouldn't even contemplate benefit cuts, as long as the Bush tax cuts for upper earners remained in place. A replay of sorts would be easy to imagine in 2025, when many of the Trump tax cuts are set to expire.

Democrats like the idea of a tax hike that phases in slowly enough to avoid a backlash or economic hit. As Social Security drifts closer to a real crisis, the GOP may be hard-pressed to come up with a politically viable alternative.

Refuse-- loudly refuse-- to support any conservative Democrat who tries to bargain away Social Security-- from Joe Biden and Steny Hoyer right down the food chain to Josh Gottheimer. It's not theirs to bargain away!

Ironically, it's far more likely to be Joe Biden to wreck Social Security than Donald Trump, who recognizes what a third rail touching it would be. Biden is, literally, too stupid to understand any such thing. Less ironically, Biden's base of support is among people already getting Social Security-- and who wouldn't be impacted by his "reforms"-- while younger voters have no interest in his ugly austerity agenda. And the handful of House Democrats who refuse to sign onto Larson's Social Security 2100 Act? Basically all conservative Biden-types, who stand for austerity:

• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Xochitl Torres-Small (Blue Dog-NM)
• Antonio Delgado (New Dem-NY)
• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)
• Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)
• Abby Finkenauer (IA)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Brad Schneider (Blue Dog-IL)
• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
• Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)
• Steny Hoyer (MD)