Social Security is the most popular government program in the history of American democracy as a result of its overwhelming success in fulfilling Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s promise that it would protect Americans from a “poverty-ridden old age.”
That’s why I was surprised when I began teaching at UW-Milwaukee, a few years ago, and I learned many young adults today don’t believe they’ll receive any Social Security benefits when they reach retirement age. Why wouldn’t the government’s most successful and popular program, now 84 years old, still be around for them?
It wasn’t difficult to trace the source of that bleak pessimism. Many had bought into the dark, apocalyptic future then being peddled by one of their state’s most prominent politicians, Republican Congressman Paul Ryan. As House budget chairman, Ryan repeatedly created draconian budgets slashing Social Security, Medicare and other social programs benefitting all Americans. He argued their increasing costs were producing unsustainable budget deficits destroying the American economy.
Everyone now knows Ryan reversed himself in his final term in Congress after Republicans elected President Trump. House Speaker Ryan enthusiastically championed the largest increase in deficit spending in U.S. history, a $1.5 trillion Republican tax cut going overwhelmingly to multimillion-dollar corporations, millionaires and billionaires.
Ryan then retired from Congress leaving it up to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to raise the new Republican argument for slashing Social Security and Medicare to reduce rising budget deficits resulting from those enormous tax cuts. Republicans don’t have any problem with government programs creating budget deficits as long as the benefits go to their wealthy friends.
‘Saving’ Social Security is Easy
When I found out college students were concerned Social Security wouldn’t exist in the future because of the cost, I enjoyed showing them mathematically how easy it was to adjust Social Security payroll taxes so there would be plenty of money for them. And most of them wouldn’t have to pay a dime more during their lifetimes. I began by writing a dollar figure on the board. The number changed slightly each year. For 2019, it would be $132,900. That’s this year’s Social Security payroll tax cap. That means everyone in the U.S. has to pay Social Security taxes on the first $132,900 of their income. It also means the overwhelming majority of working Americans have to pay Social Security taxes on 100% of their income.
|
|
But not everyone, of course, in this American age of extreme income inequality. We won’t actually know Donald Trump’s annual income until a House investigating committee gains access to president’s tax returns to learn how Trump’s presidency is filling his own pockets. But during a 2016 debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump said his previous year’s income was $694 million. If that is true—which is always questionable whenever Trump speaks—Trump would have paid this year’s total contribution to Social Security in the first 40 minutes of the year.
Focusing on the payroll cap always led to a class discussion about why there was any payroll cap at all on Social Security taxes. Why should most ordinary Americans be required to pay Social Security taxes on all their income while the wealthiest paid those taxes on only a tiny fraction of their income? Both liberal and conservative students questioned the fundamental fairness of that. The slogan of a growing movement among Social Security activists is simply “Scrap the Cap.”
Current Democratic bills to reform Social Security taxes by Connecticut Congressman John Larson in the House and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Senate keep current caps, but then resume collecting Social Security taxes again on higher incomes to include extreme wealth. Larson’s bill would start taxing for Social Security again on incomes over $400,000. Sanders’ bill would start Social Security taxes again at $250,000 and also apply to stock dividends and capital gains, recognizing the super wealthy often receive more from those sources than from payroll income.
Since Democrats won control of the House, the national political conversation is no longer limited only to issues Republicans want to discuss publicly. That’s why voters now have one representative body of Congress not only discussing universal background checks for gun purchases and whether President Trump can spend billions of tax dollars Congress refused to appropriate, but actually voting “Yes” on background checks and “No” on presidential tyranny.
Now, the national conversation on the future of Social Security is no longer confined to doomsday scenarios from Paul Ryan about a bankrupt system turning America into a smoldering economic ruin. Instead, it’s now about how to adjust Social Security taxes to include millionaires and billionaires so benefits can be increased for all retirees, including younger workers whose companies no longer provide pensions that once supplemented retirement income.
There is absolutely no reason democracy’s most successful program protecting Americans from a “poverty-ridden old age” shouldn’t continue into infinity and beyond.
