Expanding Social Security is wise policy. Voting to expand Social Security is winning politics. Indeed, generations of Democrats won election after election by running on Social Security, a program that improves the financial security of working families across America.
For decades after Social Security’s enactment, Congress improved and expanded the program, always increasing revenue to pay for the expansions. In addition to adding new benefits, Congress expanded coverage until it was nearly universal and regularly increased benefit levels. When Social Security projected unexpected shortfalls, Congress immediately enacted legislation to ensure that all benefits could be paid in full and on time through the foreseeable future.
All of these enactments went through the normal legislative process. Both the Ways and Means Committee and the Finance Committee held public hearings and executive sessions, and the full House of Representatives and Senate held recorded votes.
But in the last 35 years, Congress has treated Social Security very differently. Instead of working in the sunlight to protect and expand benefits, there have been continued attempts to cut Social Security behind closed doors.
Rep. John B. Larson, D-Conn., accompanied by members of the House Ways & Means Committee, Social … [+]
Ever since Social Security’s creation, a small group of conservatives and corporate interests has opposed Social Security on ideological grounds. But they were never successful at cutting or destroying Social Security, because the program is so popular with Americans across the political spectrum. After decades of failure, they switched tactics.
Instead of openly opposing Social Security, they claim that they “love” Social Security – but insist it is no longer affordable. If Democrats had stayed true to their identity as the Party of workers, this tactic would never have worked. However, as the so-called New Democrats began to dominate the Party in the late 1980s, they listened to Wall Street instead of working people and relinquished their electoral edge.
In the mid-1990s, Social Security actuaries began projecting a modest shortfall sometime in the mid-21st century. In response, conservative groups, joined by so-called “centrist” think tanks funded by Wall Street, convinced the New Democrats that Social Security benefits be cut in a so-called balanced, bipartisan package.
President Bill Clinton, a leading “New Dem,” bought into that approach. He tried to engineer a backroom Social Security deal with then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, but it fell apart after furious pushback from supporters of Social Security.
President George W. Bush employed the new tactic. In the name of “saving” Social Security, he proposed to destroy it by privatizing it, handing it over to Wall Street. He used the shortfall as an excuse, but this was patently absurd, given that his privatization scheme would have drastically deepened it.
Rather than give the Bush proposal credibility by proposing an alternative, Leader Nancy Pelosi smartly organized a united Democratic opposition to Bush’s scheme. As a result, Bush’s plan was defeated, not even getting a hearing in the Republican-controlled Congress. Democrats took back the House in 2006, ending Bush’s attack on Social Security.
Opposing the Bush proposal without offering an alternative was the right thing to do in 2005. Proposing an alternative would have simply muddied the debate. Unfortunately, some Democrats learned the wrong lesson from that experience. Times have changed, yet they seem unwilling to stand up and be counted now, fourteen years later. That has only neutralized a winning Democratic issue.
From the 2005 fight, Republicans learned to refuse to state what they want. Instead, they hold out for a backroom deal, muddying the public waters by claiming that they want to “strengthen” or “save” Social Security. Unlike Bush, they claim they oppose privatization.
Until recently, Democrats, still under the sway of the New Dems, haven’t sounded very different from Republicans. Politicians from both parties said they opposed privatization and argued for a vague bipartisan package. It is no surprise, given that Democrats and Republicans sound indistinguishable on this bread-and-butter issue, that seniors are not a constituency Democrats can count on.
Even today, some overly cautious politicians and analysts offer no plan of their own. They simply argue for delay or, worse a backroom deal. Fortunately, the Democratic Party has rejected the behind-closed-doors approach, and united around expanding, not cutting, Social Security’s modest benefits.
But, until Democrats force Republicans out in the open with a recorded vote, the media will fail to cover the stark difference between the Parties. Only a vote in the House of Representatives will make the positions of the Parties clear and, with that, win a large majority of senior votes.
Nearly 90% of House Democrats support Rep. John Larson’s Social Security 2100 Act, which would increase Social Security benefits and keep the program strong through the year 2100 and beyond. It increases benefits not just in targeted ways but across-the-board. That is essential to address the nation’s looming retirement income crisis. This wise legislation has already had a full hearing in the House Ways and Means Committee. Now it’s time for Democrats to bring it to the House floor for a vote.
Voting on the 2100 Act would be a much-needed return to the successful and responsible policy making of the past. In the decades following World War II, the American people respected Congress because it worked out in the open to improve and expand our earned benefits rather than seeking to cut them behind closed doors.
Of course, Mitch McConnell is highly unlikely to allow a Senate vote on the 2100 Act. Once passed out of the House, it will end up in his legislative graveyard alongside many other worthy bills. But that’s all the more reason for the House to vote on it.
Voting on the 2100 Act would require all House members to show voters exactly where they stand on Social Security. No longer would Republicans be able claim that they want to “save” Social Security. Their Democratic opponents can simply ask why they voted against a bill that would protect and expand benefits — and why they offer no alternative, which, in reality, is the same as supporting a 20% benefit cut in 2035. Similarly, Democrats can hammer McConnell and Donald Trump for refusing to take action on a popular, common-sense bill.
Democrats must shed their fear of increasing revenue. The 2100 Act includes a modest increase in the Social Security contribution rate of slightly more than a penny out of every dollar earned. Indeed, that increase is phased in over twenty-four years, almost a quarter of a century from now. The annual increase is just a single nickel – five cents – on every $100 earned. For workers earning $50,000, that annual increase amounts to just fifty cents a week. Past history and recent polling reveal that the American people are more than willing to pay this modest price.
Democrats have a golden opportunity to end a decades-long misstep on Social Security, and reclaim their legacy as the party of FDR. They need to take it, by bringing the 2100 Act to the House floor at the earliest possible opportunity. As someone who has been involved in Social Security policymaking for almost half a century, I am confident the American people will reward them for it.