Posts tagged Benefits
Posts tagged Benefits
To me the solution to the coming Social Security shortfall is obvious. Just eliminate the income cap that exempts the rich from paying Social Security on their entire salaries. Problem solved. However raising the retirement age appears the solution most likely to be adopted. My principal objection to raising the retirement age is it shifts benefits to the rich because life expectancy varies directly with wealth. However, I ran across a proposal that, while not the best, is a compromise that could warrant consideration…
I’m wary of lumping Social Security and Medicare proposals together, since they face such different financing problems and serve different purposes. Still, it was exciting to see a major figure like Ezekiel Emmanuel address the disparity in life expectancy across incomes while acknowledging the importance of universal coverage. Progress! Now we just have to show people like Emmanuel that we can actually expand coverage, instead of cutting it for high income earners.
A Senate committee approved legislation Wednesday allowing same-sex partners of federal employees to receive employment benefits.
The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act with a bipartisan voice vote. It must be approved by the full Senate and the House before enactment.
While LGBT couples still face significant barriers to equitable benefits, some groups are trying to change the language of the Social Security Act as a way to incorporate same sex marriage, domestic partnerships, and civil unions.
A coalition of advocacy groups has proposed the Social Security Equality Act, which would let couples in relationships recognized by their state of residence to receive the same Social Security benefits as heterosexual married couples. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Linda Sanchez, a Democrat from California, would recognize domestic partnership, civil union and marriage.
Last week, the National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare proposed removing gender-specific definitions of the words “husband” and “wife” in the Act as part of a broader proposal to enhance and reform Social Security benefits.
Apparently, this Julia is a pretty divisive figure. The campaign infographic has been getting a lot of criticism from Republicans—Rush Limbaugh attacked it as more “liberal cradle-to-grave care for every citizen”—as was to be expected.
But it was recently dealt three Pinocchios from the Washington Posts’ Fact Checker, which at least claims to get to “The Truth Behind the Rhetoric.” The Fact Checker says that the Social Security slide is misleading. He writes,
Note how carefully the Obama campaign’s statement is worded. It says that, under Obama, Julia “receives monthly benefits that help her retire comfortably.” It does not promise that projected benefits will not be cut, but it certainly implies that.
The Fact Checker says that this is misleading because in the almost-completed Grand Bargain, benefits would have been cut. That is true—he did do that! Unfortunately, the Fact Checker reinforces the same narrative driving those talks: that no matter what happens, benefits will have to be cut to insure solvency.
This frame of the “Life of Julia” series is fairly misleading. If Obama actually does something to improve the solvency of Social Security, benefits are likely to be cut in some fashion. If Obama — and future presidents — do nothing, benefits will also be cut.
Obama, and Congress, can still do something to improve the solvency of Social Security without cutting benefits. Failure to address that makes this article misleading. The WaPo’s Fact Checker lapses into the very rhetoric he is paid to reveal.
photo credit: Justin Ennis, via Creative Commons