Sign up and get this newsletter for free.
A new piece of legislation aims to avert a Social Security crisis by fast-tracking a solution before cuts are imminent. But Democrats are torn: Some say, far from saving the program, the bill could give Republicans an opening to raise the retirement age or cut benefits.
Critics like Senator Bernie Sanders say there’s insufficient oversight of the SSAB drafting process and that the tight voting timeline means a lame-duck Congress could be deciding the future of Social Security. “Social Security is the most important program facing the American people, and we need a serious way forward,” Sanders told The New Republic. “I don’t think a serious way forward is having folks who have either been defeated for election or who are retiring making the key decisions.”
A report released by the Social Security Board of Trustees in early June found that the Social Security Trust Fund will only be able to cover 78 percent of benefits in 2032, which means that without congressional action, Americans who receive Social Security benefits will see theirs reduced by 22 percent. Based on the average benefit of $2,071 per month, that would amount to a monthly cut of $450. More than 70 million Americans receive Social Security benefits. One estimate suggests that this cut could push more than three million seniors and people with disabilities into poverty.
Sanders pointed to his own proposal for Social Security, as well as Senator Elizabeth Warren’s, as potentially the best paths forward. Both Sanders and Warren support lifting the cap on taxable income to generate more revenue for Social Security. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax only applies to the first $184,500 workers earn. Someone who makes $60,000 per year, for example, will pay 6.2 percent of every dollar they earn into Social Security. Someone who makes $500,000, though, will only pay that 6.2 percent tax on the first $184,500 of their income. Warren suggests eliminating the cap altogether, and Sanders wants to subject all income over $250,000 to the payroll tax.
Removing the cap while providing benefit credit for those earnings could raise an additional $3.4 trillion over the next 10 years, according to one estimate. That revenue would close nearly half of the 75-year funding gap.
“We have very different approaches to resolving the upcoming Social Security cliff, and Republicans more than once have tried to put together commissions, hoping that Democrats will give them cover for their preferred solution: cutting the benefits. I won’t be a partner to that,” Warren said.
Sanders sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to Democrats on Monday expressing the same concerns.
—Emma Janssen
Outside Washington
Amid all the primaries coverage this week, you may have missed the remarkable finding that Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville—a 2020 election denier with a history of Islamophobic and racist remarks—is leading Democrat Doug Jones by only 49–41 in the Alabama governor’s race, despite 56 percent of respondents in that poll identifying as Republican. Granted, it was a weird news item: Those numbers were pulled from a poll funded by a national school-choice advocacy group called the “yes. every kid. foundation.” that was aiming to showcase the potential political payoff of supporting school choice. But when Tuberville and Jones last faced off, in the 2020 Senate race, Tuberville beat Jones by 20 points. So in that context—and given that there hasn’t been much polling on this race so far—the poll was guaranteed to make headlines. “If you’re a Democrat, I’m Lloyd Christmas telling you there’s a chance,” wrote Josh Moon at the Alabama Political Reporter on Wednesday, noting that this poll was conducted before Tuberville alienated a bunch of people with “scorched earth” comments against Social Security and in favor of data centers. “And if you’re a Republican supporting Tuberville,” Moon added, “I’m telling you that you’ve still got a two-score lead, but the other team is at the goal line and your quarterback keeps throwing interceptions.”
CalMatters reporter Rachel Becker explains, for laypeople, why the ongoing policy negotiations over Colorado River water usage are so very complicated—and why neither the “rough parameters” released by Trump’s Interior Department last week nor the cuts that will be announced “any day” now are going to meet the urgent need for a long-term, comprehensive plan. “Building anything to store, move, or make more water typically takes decades and billions of dollars. Without longer-term certainty about how states will share the river’s water supply among 40 million people, millions of acres of agriculture, and two states in Mexico—cities and irrigation providers are struggling to plan how to close the gaps,” writes Becker.Big news for avocado fans and both hobbyist and professional plant breeders: Scientists have finally identified the gene that determines when during the day the trees open their female flowers versus their male ones—a daily sex-change ritual each avocado plant performs that’s been puzzling scientists for over a century.
—Heather Souvaine Horn
The Open Markets Institute has filed an amicus brief in the Justice Department’s antitrust case against Google, arguing against a court ruling that allows Google to continue “pay[ing] companies such as Apple and browser developers to make Google Search the default search engine.” Brief author and OMI policy counsel Tara Pincock said in the organization’s press release, “If the court allows those payments to continue, the remedy will leave the monopoly largely intact.”
—Heather Souvaine Horn
In Closing
Did Jeanine Pirro have any other choice?
Political Trivia Question of the Day
As the anniversary of Richard Nixon’s resignation approaches (it’s next Sunday), we’ll toss out a couple Watergate-related questions. Today, the easier one: What was the name of Nixon’s secretary who acknowledged that she “accidentally” erased up to 18.5 minutes of a taped Oval Office conversation between Nixon and aide H.R. Haldeman? (Sign up for The Blue Book to find the answer in tomorrow’s newsletter.)
Hence then, the article about will this bill save social security or kill it was published today ( ) and is available on The New Republic ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Will This Bill Save Social Security, or Kill It? )
Also on site :
- NYFF Turns Up The Heat As ‘Godzilla’, ‘Artificial’, ‘NAZA’, ‘You Can See Everything’ Spark Festival Buzz
- Britain’s rhetorical war, Zelensky’s UN crashout, deep state media exposed: RT stories that shaped the week
- Psychologist Says People Who Like To Read Every Day Don’t Just ‘Want To Escape’—They Actually Often Share These 5 Unique Qualities