Editor\u2019s Note: Welcome to The TNR Blue Book. It\u2019s our new daily newsletter that covers Congress and much more, but with a distinctly TNR twist: Our focus will be strictly on Democrats, liberal and progressive groups, and the fight to take back power and save democracy. Every morning, you\u2019ll get a rundown of late-breaking news, what Democrats on Capitol Hill are thinking, quick hits on what you need to know nationally, the latest on what\u2019s coming out of the think tanks and activist groups, short interviews with progressive newsmakers and authors, and more (including some humor and political trivia!). There\u2019s nothing else out there like it.<\/p>\n
Sign up and get this newsletter for free.<\/p>\n
Will this bill save Social Security, or kill it?<\/p>\n
A new piece of legislation aims to avert a Social Security crisis by fast-tracking a solution before cuts are imminent. But Democrats are torn: Some say, far from saving the program, the bill could give Republicans an opening to raise the retirement age or cut benefits.<\/p>\n
The bipartisan bill, dubbed the Protecting Retirement Opportunities and Maintaining Income Security for Everyone, or PROMISE, Act, calls for the nonpartisan Social Security Advisory Board, or SSAB, to come up with a legislative framework to keep Social Security solvent for at least 50 more years. The act, which senators debated in a Finance Committee hearing on Wednesday, also requires the House and Senate to debate, amend, and vote on the bill on a condensed timeline, with just 100 hours of floor time allotted for it.<\/p>\n
Critics like Senator Bernie Sanders say there\u2019s insufficient oversight of the SSAB drafting process and that the tight voting timeline means a lame-duck Congress could be deciding the future of Social Security. \u201cSocial Security is the most important program facing the American people, and we need a serious way forward,\u201d Sanders told The New Republic. \u201cI don\u2019t think a serious way forward is having folks who have either been defeated for election or who are retiring making the key decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n
Senator Tim Kaine, one of the bill\u2019s co-sponsors, said he understands the desire to start this process when there isn\u2019t a Republican governing trifecta, but that there\u2019s a downside to further delay. \u201cIf you wait until it\u2019s right up against the deadline, you traumatize a lot of people who think maybe [Congress] won\u2019t come up with a solution,\u201d he said. \u201cSo our goal is to start the discussion earlier.\u201d<\/p>\n
A report released by the Social Security Board of Trustees in early June found that the Social Security Trust Fund will only be able to cover 78 percent of benefits in 2032, which means that without congressional action, Americans who receive Social Security benefits will see theirs reduced by 22 percent. Based on the average benefit of $2,071 per month, that would amount to a monthly cut of $450. More than 70 million Americans receive Social Security benefits. One estimate suggests that this cut could push more than three million seniors and people with disabilities into poverty.<\/p>\n
Some progressive senators suggested Wednesday that the impending cliff is all the more reason to have a freshly elected Congress address the issue directly, rather than relying on the SSAB to determine the path forward.<\/p>\n
Sanders pointed to his own proposal for Social Security, as well as Senator Elizabeth Warren\u2019s, as potentially the best paths forward. Both Sanders and Warren support lifting the cap on taxable income to generate more revenue for Social Security. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax only applies to the first $184,500 workers earn. Someone who makes $60,000 per year, for example, will pay 6.2 percent of every dollar they earn into Social Security. Someone who makes $500,000, though, will only pay that 6.2 percent tax on the first $184,500 of their income. Warren suggests eliminating the cap altogether, and Sanders wants to subject all income over $250,000 to the payroll tax.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you\u2019re a nurse or an electrician, you pay taxes with every paycheck. If you\u2019re a billionaire and you\u2019re good with your accountant and you know your lawyer, you can pay little or nothing; that\u2019s not right,\u201d explained Senator Ron Wyden, who started his career as the co-founder of Oregon\u2019s Gray Panthers, an advocacy organization for the elderly.<\/p>\n
Removing the cap while providing benefit credit for those earnings could raise an additional $3.4 trillion over the next 10 years, according to one estimate. That revenue would close nearly half of the 75-year funding gap.<\/p>\n
Progressives like Sanders and Warren also worry that the SSAB, left to its own devices, might propose policies like raising the retirement age, privatizing the program, or reducing cost-of-living adjustments.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have very different approaches to resolving the upcoming Social Security cliff, and Republicans more than once have tried to put together commissions, hoping that Democrats will give them cover for their preferred solution: cutting the benefits. I won\u2019t be a partner to that,\u201d Warren said.<\/p>\n
The AARP, whose executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer, Nancy LeaMond, testified in the Finance Committee hearing on Wednesday, seems to agree with progressives on this. \u201cYour legislation would require an unelected, four-member Advisory Board to put together a 50-year solvency plan in just over a month, with little time for deliberation and limited public input,\u201d LeaMond wrote in a July letter opposing the bill. \u201cIf they are unsuccessful, any two members of Congress could force votes on their plans in just a few weeks.\u201d She likewise criticized the prospect of \u201cfast-tracked floor debates in the lame-duck session of Congress, just after the November elections, when departing Members are completely unaccountable to voters.\u201d<\/p>\n