Social Security is essential to save with viable solvency plans

The Social Security Act, signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935, created Social Security, a federal safety net for elderly, unemployed and disadvantaged Americans.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt 

Nancy J. Altman opinion echo and analysis published in the The Southern Illinoisan: Social Security’s future is a question of values, not affordability.

Social Security is conservatively financed and managed. It has no borrowing authority and cannot spend itself into a deficit. To ensure that all benefits can be paid in full and on time, Social Security’s Board of Trustees reports to Congress annually, projecting the program's income and expenses over three-quarters of a century. That is a longer valuation period than private pensions or most other countries project for their counterpart programs.

When such a long period is employed, projections will sometimes show unintended surpluses or shortfalls. Unsurprisingly, the Social Security trustees are reporting a manageable shortfall more than a decade away. It should be closed by increasing Social Security’s dedicated revenue.

One widely mentioned and popular approach is to eliminate the income cap on which Social Security’s insurance contributions are assessed. Currently, most workers contribute to Social Security all year long. But the highest-paid workers stop contributing after their earnings reach the cap — $147,000 in 2022. Depending on how quickly the cap was phased out and to what extent the additional contributions are credited toward future benefits, eliminating it would significantly close the shortfall.

As one example of that approach, Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust (H.R. 5723 and S. 3071), which has more than 200 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, expands benefits while phasing out the cap over 30 years, starting with earnings of more than $400,000. It eliminates more than 60% of the projected shortfall.

Another example is the Social Security Expansion Act (S. 4365 and H.R. 8005), which increases benefits by $200 a month and eliminates the 75-year shortfall. It does so by phasing out the cap over 20 years, starting with earnings over $250,000, and assessing Social Security contributions on unearned investment income and earned income.

Both bills expand benefits with no cuts. That is crucial. Restoring Social Security to a long-range actuarial balance is important. But we also should ask if the benefits are large enough, and how to fund those benefits fairly.

Social Security is more universal, secure, fair and efficient than its private-sector counterparts. Its one shortcoming is that its benefits are too low by virtually any measure. As a result of its inadequately low benefits, together with the disappearance of private-sector pensions, the nation is facing a retirement income crisis. Cutting Social Security’s already low benefits would exacerbate that crisis.

While eliminating the cap on Social Security contributions is both popular and sound, it is crucial to recognize that it simply requires the highest-paid workers to pay the same rate on all their earnings as 94% of all workers now do, including the lowest paid. Progressive revenue, where the wealthy pay a higher percentage, now constitutes only 3% of Social Security’s total dedicated revenue. Additional progressive revenue should be dedicated to Social Security.

The nation is facing rising, destabilizing income and wealth inequality. In addition to its other harms, rising inequality has cost Social Security billions of dollars of revenue every year due to increasing amounts of earnings exceeding Social Security’s cap. Expanding Social Security’s modest benefits while requiring the wealthiest to pay more is a solution to the retirement income crisis and the economic squeeze on working families. It also addresses inequality.

There are numerous options. The late Robert M. Ball, the longest-serving Social Security commissioner and widely recognized as the foremost expert on our nation’s Social Security system at the time of his death, proposed that the estate tax should be dedicated to Social Security. Other possibilities include a financial transactions tax, a wealth tax and a surtax on incomes in excess of $1 million.

Expanding Social Security is unquestionably affordable. Social Security’s cost as a percentage of gross domestic product is close to level for the next three-quarters of a century and beyond.

Whether to expand or cut benefits is a question of values, not affordability. Fortunately, as polarized as the nation is over many issues, polls reveal that Americans overwhelmingly agree that Social Security should be expanded, not cut. They also agree that the wealthiest, who have benefited greatly, should pay more* toward the common good. This is the best policy.

*To Whom Much is Given, Much is Expected (Luke 12: 48)

A Winstonian message transcends time - Merry Christmas from the Churchill Center

Maine Writer- Although the world was not experiencing the peak of a deadly coronavirus pandemic in 1941, the globe was darkened by a Second World War. Nevertheless, Winston Churchill rose to the moment by presenting a realistic evaluation of the occasion of Christmas.  We can just add COVID to the Pearl Harbor attack in this message, to deepen our respect for this timeless Winstonian message, sent to me by the Churchill Society.

Included in the message is a link to YouTube videos where the speeches given that day are available for viewing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZTRbNThHnk&mc_cid=364041dba6&mc_eid=d0ff7fe24b

Prime Minister Winston Churchill stands behind President Franklin D Roosevelt as he speaks from the South Portico of the White House during the National Christmas Tree Lighting ceremony, 24 December 1941. © FDR Library

Winston Churchill visited the United States to celebrate Christmas and the New Year holidays with President Franklin D. Roosevelt 79 years ago, at the White House. At the time, the United States was reeling from the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor and faced an uncertain future having entered into war with Japan. 

Churchill came to Washington to provide support to this fellow English-speaking nation and to begin coordinating the defeat of their shared enemies. 

On the night of December 24, 1941, Churchill gave a speech on the White House portico and delivered the following words that touched the hearts of a nation during a deep crisis:

“Here, in the midst of war, raging and roaring over all the lands and seas….we have tonight the peace of the spirit in each cottage home and in every generous heart….Let the children have their night of fun and laughter. Let the gifts of Father Christmas delight their play. Let us grown-ups share to the full in their unstinted pleasures before we turn again to the stern task and the formidable years that lie before us, resolved that, by our sacrifice and daring, these same children shall not be robbed of their inheritance or denied their right to live in a free and decent world.”

Whatever religion you observe or traditions you partake in, we at the International Churchill Society wish you a healthy and restorative holiday season. We hope you will be able to feel the spirit of the holiday season and find peace in the midst of some of the most trying times in recent memory.

Thank you for your support of the International Churchill Society,

Justin Reash
Executive Director
jreash@winstonchurchill.org
+1-202-929-0309

Beginning with George- President's private lives are irrelevant

Vulgarian-Trumparians are vainly trying to intimidate Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, based on past issues with President William Jefferson Clinton's private life. Nevertheless, the fact is, private lives are irrelevant when evaluating political leadership.

Obviously, I'm not a Presidential historian; but just a lay person who reads a lot of history. But, here's what I know about presidential sexual (and anecdotal) history:

"George Washington Slept Here" is often a joke, but we just don't know much about his life away from Mount Vernon. Who cares?

1.  George Washington (1732-1799):  There are lots of jokes about "George Washington slept here", because he was a very mobile Colonial Revolutionary War General. Nevertheless, we don't know who General George may have "slept" with, if anybody. Rumors are, George's times away from his wife Martha at Virginia's Mount Vernon, may not  have been celebate. Frankly, "who cares?".  

2. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826): Author of the Declaration of Independence and 3rd President of the United States had a long affair and children with a slave lady named Sally Hemings (born in 1773, in Virginia, worked on the Monticello plantation of Thomas Jefferson). After decades of questions about their relationship, the children attibuted to this affair were confirmed by DNA analysis. At the end of the day, "who cares?".3. Warren Harding (November 2, 1865 – August 2, 1923):  Was 29th President of the United States- fathered a "love child" named Elizabeth Ann Britton Harding Blaesing (October 22, 1919 – November 17, 2005) was indeed the daughter of Warren G. Harding, the 29th President of the United States, and one of his mistresses, Nan Britton.  Harding and Britton, who each lived in Marion, Ohio, began their affair when he was a U.S. Senator and it continued until his sudden death, during his presidency.

4.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945):  Married to Eleanor, the mother of his six children. Yet, the popular President, who was leader of the US during the Great Depression and World War II, had a long love and affair with Lucy Page Mercer Rutherford (1891-1948), who was with the President when he died in Warm Springs, Georgia.  Does anybody really care?  

5.  Dwight D. Eisenhower- was very close to Kay Summersby (23 November 1908 – 20 January 1975). Although there's no confirmation about a sexual affair between the two, nobody really knows.  Probably, Mrs. Mamie Eisenhower, the President's wife, knew a lot about the relationship, but, frankly, "who cares?".

6.  John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917-1963) - seemed to live a double life, if all the sexual liaiasons he experienced are to be believed. Nevertheless, President Kennedy was married to Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy (Onasis) until her husband was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Whatever sexual affairs President Kennedy had during his marraige, they are truly irrelevant today. Who cares?

7.  William Jefferson Clinton and Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton - (yawn)...."who cares?".

Of course, news about sexual affairs among the rich, famous and powerful are always titilating. They are the subjects of endless best selling books and movies.  Nevertheless, at the end of a leadership career, what counts are the attibutes and successes of the person who frames an era.  

In other words, what happens in a marriage, famous or otherwise, stays in the family.  Let's allow Mrs. Hillary Clinton to run for the office of President of the United States without having to answer for the indescretions of her husband. Frankly, the Clinton's marriage and what goes on in it are entirely their personal and private business. What Americans must care about is competent leadership. Obviously, Mrs. Clinton is a humanitarian world leader and, therefore, whatever happened in her past personal life, frankly, is none of our business.