Obama: Let my successor deal with Social Security pain
Obama has resorted to temporizing and excuses instead of addressing the Social Security problem head on. He's not going to increase payroll taxes to fill impending Social Security shortfalls for another 10 years. The thinking: Yeah, we know Social Security needs extra revenue, but any change implemented now would have been phased in and wouldn't have had much immediate effect anyway. So we'll just postpone the pain until after my term as president, when we'll hammer people with increases all at once.
Here's Obama economic czar Jason Furman talking to Bloomberg:
``Historically, many tax changes in Social Security have been phased in gradually and usually not effective immediately,'' Furman, Obama's chief economic adviser, said in an e-mailed response to questions. ``You have virtually the same impact on solvency as an immediate change.''
This is just political chickenheartedness. You can argue about the particulars of his plan -- sticking only income above $250,000 a year with the new payroll taxes. (The SS payroll tax tops out at $102,000 this year. Any income above that isn't taxed for SS. Obama's plan would leave a SS-tax-free doughnut hole between 102K and 250K.) But the basic idea of postponing action for a decade is a cop-out. Obama has said there is a "Social Security crisis." He has also said it's not a crisis. But he doesn't deny there's a problem, and most problems don't get better by neglect.
Comments
This has been the problem with Democrats for years. They can't deliever for the people. There is going to come a day when the Democratic Base, rank and file Dems etc.. will simply give up on Democrats. They need to get some spine and start representing the interests of the people. They cannot continue to be closet corporatists and pretend to be for the people.
Posted by: pekopper | August 18, 2008 12:35 PM
It actually makes sense to delay raising the payroll taxes until benefits paid out exceed the current taxes coming in. Because if extra money comes in before then, we're just going to spend it on something else, just like we're doing now.
Posted by: TS | August 18, 2008 12:36 PM
Jay, I agree wisom some of what you say, but George Bush Jr. has had the last 8 years to deal with this serisous issue, and had a Republican Congress to work with for the 1st few years. Yet, nothing has been done.
The problem is neither party wants to deal with it. They are both corrupt.
Trace
Posted by: Trace | August 18, 2008 2:00 PM
Jay,
I'm curious to know how a business columnist has any authority to cast such harsh words against Obama on Social Security?
You are sticking your nose into government affairs without casting any light on any of the actions taken by the current administration and its original Republican Congress. In fact, you are blaming Obama before he's even in the Oval Office!
Stick to what you know: Business.
Posted by: The Voice of Reason | August 18, 2008 5:23 PM