"Why reform now?" is indeed a good question. Social Security will pay full benefits for next 35 years, and with no adjustments would still be able to cover 65-75 percent of scheduled benefits for the next 40 years. (These reduced benefits will be greater than full benefits now in purchasing power due to increases in wages, and thus, benefit levels). The question "Why reform now?" is begging the question: "Why fix Social Security when it's not broken?"
There is much reason to question the motives of "reformers", who, according to a policy report by the Economic Opportunity Institute, a public policy institute in Washington state, are funded by investment houses like DuPont Company and Morgan Stanley. (The report is available at their website: www.econop.org).
This EOI policy report suggests expansion of Social Security, not reform. I agree with their stance on this issue. Social Security reform proposals undermine economic security, raise taxes, reduce benefits and take money from benefit payments to give them to Wall Street. In most cases, they also raise the retirement age and erode the COLA. Most importantly, "reform"
proposals dismantle the current Social Security safety net to turn our nation's most successful insurance plan into an investment scheme.
The EOI suggests two simple steps to fill the gap projected to occur in 2034. 1. Eliminate the cap on taxable income: "Today, a worker who is making $72,600 and a worker who is making $7.8 million contribute the exact same amount in FICA taxes, representing 6.2% of the former's income, and only .05% of the latter's." 2. Use 1/4 of the 15-year budget surplus.
Then, we should expand Social Security, by holding the retirement age at 65, and by "incrementally increas[ing] Social Security benefits for low income and middle class retirees."
Social Security is fundamentally important to our nation. As citizens of a country with one of the most productive economies in the world, privatization advocates should be ashamed of trying to whittle away the economic security of our workers and their families. Our productive economy should mean workers should be able to work less, not more. We should have the foresight to recogize both the social and economic benefits of providing universal retirement, disability and survivor's insurance with such efficiency and success.
