S4 talked to Senator John McCain at a weekend townhall meeting in New Hampshire. The Union Leader reports:
Jo Jensen, 22, of Manchester asked McCain what he would do to fix Social Security for future generations without overburdening young people. Jensen is a member of the grassroots group Students for Saving Social Security.
McCain said politicians must work together to prevent the Social Security system from collapsing. Older Americans aren't at risk of losing their benefits, he said, but younger ones are if the problem isn't fixed.
After the townhall meeting, we took a picture with McCain that you can see here.
Senator Edwards said at the debate last night that his plan to fix Social Security would be to raise the Social Security cap (a tax increase) with a "bubble" from $97,000 to $250,000. Today, at the University of New Hampshire, S4 asked the Senator for more specifics of his plan.
S4: "Is the $250,000 is indexed for inflation?"
Senator Edwards: "I can honestly tell you that it's not something I've thought about... it may need to be." Posted by Jo Jensen| Comments (0)
From MSNBC "Several of the Democrats endorsed payroll tax increases to assure a stable Social Security system.
Biden of Delaware and Kucinich, as well as Biden, Dodd, Obama, Edwards all said they would apply the tax to income now exempted.
Richardson said he wouldn't and Clinton refused to say. "I'm not putting anything on the proverbial table" unilaterally, she said.
Current law levies a 7.65 payroll tax only on an individual's first $97,000 in annual income.
Biden also said he was willing to consider gradually raising the retirement age, which is now 67.
Kucinich said that while he favors taxing additional income, he wants to return the retirement age to 65, where it stood until the law was changed in 1983." Posted by Jo Jensen| Comments (0)
[I]n a candidate debate in Iowa last week, Clinton was asked how she would protect Social Security. After she ruled out raising the retirement age or reducing benefits, she was asked if that meant she was leaving higher taxes on the table. "No, not at all," Clinton said. Her solution: return to the economic prosperity of her husband's administration. That was not a serious answer, it was a pathetic cop-out.
Clinton's initial response to Woodruff on Thursday night demonstrated she's not ready to talk seriously yet about one of the biggest issues looming as her Baby Boom generation moves into retirement.
It seems that Clinton's plan for fixing Social Security is to grow the economy. This, she says, will prevent the government from continued borrowing against the trust fund.
But doesn't this line of reasoning bring up more questions than it answers? For example, aren't people curious about how Clinton plans to protect the surplus and what she intends to do with the money? And isn't it odd that she voted against Senator DeMint's amendment earlier this year to ensure that revenues from the Social Security tax are used for no program other than Social Security?
Gailey and Balz are right that Clinton isn't serious about fixing Social Security. But that doesn't mean that the rest of us have to abide her political cowardice.
In case you missed it, Secure Our Future visited Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign office in New Hampshire last week with an award -- the Ostrich Award.
Our press release explains: "The Ostrich Award recognizes Presidential candidates who have their 'heads in the sand' and continue to ignore the problems facing Social Security, offering 'stick it to future generations' plans."
The reason for the reward? Clinton plans to raise taxes on our generation. During a speech at an AARP conference, Mrs. Clinton ruled out protected pension funds, raising the retirement age and reducing benefits.
Clinton is the first presidential candidate to receive our Ostrich Award.
The idea of universal savings accounts outside Social Security is back, as evidenced by Congressman Rahm Emanuel's Wall Street Journal commentary on September 13. Emanuel believes that the accounts are a short-term answer to the debate on retirement security.
We are just as skeptical of the idea now as we were last time around, when Senator Jeff Sessions made an argument for portable savings accounts that would entitle newborn Americans to $1000. Which is to say that we believe Emanuel's plan is worthy of discussion and we welcome details. But it is also to say that we will likely find it hard to agree with his proposal.
For starters, it is odd that Emanuel bases the argument for his new program on the personal saving rate, a statistic which the WSJ has all but abandoned. On February 3 of this year the newspaper reported, "For our part, these columns long ago began to watch a far more instructive figure known as 'household net worth.'" (See their explanation here.)
And guess what? The Federal Reserve announced on Monday that household net worth increased by 2.1% during the second quarter of 2007, or nearly double the rate of this year's first quarter. Perhaps Mr. Emanuel should have held off on his commentary.
Of course, the substance of our disagreement stems from Emanuel's failure to address the real issue: Our generation will be in trouble because Social Security will not meet more than 75% of its promised benefits to us. In light of this, a new mandatory savings plans seems a strange consideration. Why not get to the root of the problem?
For Our Grandchildren, a fellow Social Security reform advocacy group, features Senator John McCain in its most recent edition of Expert Q&A. Here is an excerpt of McCain's response to a question about what the next president will need to do to achieve reform:
I believe that we may meet our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising taxes, and I have long supported supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts—but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept. People of good faith in both parties agree that we must make the hard decisions to restore solvency to these programs.
As President, I will work on a bi-partisan basis to make the hard choices to save Social Security and Medicare, protect the retirement security of our workers, and protect the American economy. I will listen to any serious reform proposal people have but believe we can achieve reform and modernization without higher taxes.
Fred Thompson can (in his own words) "Walk and Chew Gum At The Same Time!" Especially when it comes to Social Security reform- watch this video!
Posted by Jo Jensen| Comments (1)
