Dems are Actually on Offense on Social Security

     This is something we haven't seen since LBJ:

     "During a last-minute budget session, the Massachusetts senator introduced an amendment to “expand and protect Social Security” by raising taxes to keep the program solvent and increasing benefits to better assist seniors. The resolution failed to pass the Republican-controlled Senate, but not before Warren won support from all but two of her Democratic colleagues. (The holdouts were Tom Carper of Delaware and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota.)"

      "Likewise, during the same session, Sanders introduced an amendment protecting all Americans from cuts to earned Social Security benefits. It also failed the GOP Senate, but—like Warren’s amendment—it won support from virtually every Democrat in the chamber. Indeed, as a Monday story in the Wall Street Journal points out, Social Security expansion has entered the Democratic mainstream, touted by lawmakers and pushed by presidential candidates like Martin O’Malley, as well as congressional candidates like Rep. Donna Edwards, who is running for an open Senate seat in Maryland."

     "Now, “Democrats Support Social Security” may sound like a nonstory, a political “Dog Bites Man.” But it’s not. Think back to the period stretching from just after the Democratic nadir of the 2010 midterm elections to just after the 2012 presidential election when, caught in Washington’s hysteria over spending, Barack Obama and other Democrats tried hard to strike a bipartisan “grand bargain” on debt and deficits. In exchange for a modest tax hike of $100 billion over 10 years—targeted at the wealthiest Americans—Democrats were willing to cut spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security."

      "It was an outrageous deal. For almost nothing, Obama was giving away the store on core party priorities; for decades, Democrats defended retirement programs with near-religious zeal. Now, a Democratic president was clearing the field for an attack on two pillars of the welfare state. But blinded by ideology and their hatred of Obama, House Republicans couldn't see the great deal in front of them. They rejected it, leaving Obama to shrink from the grand bargain and gradually abandon the entire approach."

     "Liberals didn't abandon Obama over his push for entitlement cuts. Instead, they re calibrated. Instead of a perpetual defense—in which they rallied to fight attacks on retirement programs—they would go on the offense, pushing the party to adopt a more expansive vision of Social Security and other entitlements. It helps that there’s a real problem. Americans are woefully unready for retirement, with little savings and an individualized system of defined contributions and 401Ks that isn't durable in the face of sluggish growth and a weak economy. Social Security isn’t perfect, but it’s a strong foundation for a broader program of retirement security."

 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/04/social_security_expansion_how_democrats_turned_around_on_an_essential_liberal.html

     The 'man bites dog' aspect is that the Dems are on the offensive-as the piece notes. For years the Dems had been just fighting to forestall Right wing attacks-privatization, ,cuts, etc. I will differ a little bit on Slate's version of events regarding President Obama. They make it sound like he relished cutting SS, but don't give any context. He wasn't talking about putting a meat cleaver to SS-it was the Bush private accounts scheme. He only mentioned possibly indexing COLA and raising the retirement age. I'm not a fan of either policy but recognize that he offered that in the context of a pretty complex board with lots of moving parts-including debt ceiling chicken that the GOP was playing and a political climate that had unfortunately kind of bought into the austerity trap at the time. 

     The reality is that he bested the GOP there-I agree with Laurence O'Donnell that he was playing 11 dimensional chess. Ultimately the GOP outsmarted itself and the Dems got the end of the Bush tax cuts for the rich without having to give up anything. 

     Overall, though Slate's point is well taken. The Dems are actually on the offense and this truly is a case of man bites dog. While I like what I'm seeing, it should be borne in mind that the idea of raising SS benefits by lifting the cap can be problematic-as part of SS's success has been that it's offered to everyone at the same rate of taxation. It's very repressiveness is a large part of its success-or at least this is what FDR believed and many liberals have believed since. If it becomes a mere welfare program this could lead to a drop in its support. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for removing the cap-if that bad result can be avoided. 

      That's not the assumption that liberals had going back to FDR had. It's also notable that the much larger European welfare state is based on the same model-the taxes for welfare there is sharply regressive. That's always been the tradeoff-we have a smaller welfare state but more tax progressivity, they have a harshly regressive tax system but a very generous welfare state. 

     Again, I'm all for lifting the cap if there is reason to be confident this will not be the result.. I'm very happy to see that Michael Lind's New American Foundation was a major catalyst for the push. Slate links to his piece:

     "Under our proposal for Expanded Social Security, today’s Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI), commonly known simply as “Social Security,” would be retained, possibly with modifications, as an earnings-based defined benefit program. This would be renamed Social Security A. The expected shortfall in funding for promised benefits that is predicted to occur in the 2030s would be made up for by revenue increases, not benefit cuts."

      "To supplement Social Security A, we would add a universal flat benefit for all retirees eligible for OASI called “Social Security B.” Social Security B could be funded by revenues other than the payroll tax. Today’s Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a means-tested antipoverty program that helps poor children and the disabled as well as the elderly, has always been funded out of general revenues. SSI thus provides a precedent for expanding the funding base for Social Security B. Indeed, one option would be to convert SSI into Social Security B."

     http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/04/social_security_expansion_how_democrats_turned_around_on_an_essential_liberal.html

     So he argues that we can have a Part B for SS that comes from general revenues rather than the payroll tax.