O'Malley's Social Security plan is bold, progressive.

[elleng]

'On Dec. 6 I attended AARP Iowa’s New Leadership forum with Martin O’Malley, and I was impressed. Martin O’Malley has a bold and progressive plan to expand Social Security for all Americans.

Expanding benefits means all beneficiaries’ monthly benefits will go up, in a progressive way that helps lower- and middle-income people the most. It means annual cost-of-living increases will go up. It means that women and other caregivers won’t be penalized under Social Security’s benefits formula for taking time off to care for a child, elderly relative or other loved ones. And it means that no one who worked 30 years on a job will have to retire in poverty.

While Martin O’Malley has been fighting against cuts to Social Security, Hillary Clinton has left that door open. Clinton would undermine what's worked about Social Security for 80 years — that it is a benefit all workers earn — and instead make Social Security more like a welfare program. This is the same damaging rhetoric used by Republicans.

In the past, Clinton has allied herself with Republicans who would reduce benefits by reducing cost-of-living adjustments or means-testing benefits. She continues to use similar language today.

As Democrats, it is time to stand up for our values and call for the expansion of Social Security for all beneficiaries. Not cutting benefits, or merely “enhancing them," raising the retirement age or undermining benefits in any way.

Martin O’Malley has the right plan to expand, not just enhance, Social Security for all Americans.'

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/12/15/omalleys-social-security-plan-bold-progressive/76987624/

[exboyfil]

1. Some issues with the plan

The first is that their should be no notch in contributions. Stopping after $117K and then picking up withholding again after $250K. The income in the middle range is needed for S.S. stability, and it is frankly not fair to exclude it. Right now the system is supported on the backs of those making approximately $50K-$117K (inflation adjusted) for their careers. I propose the implementation of a fourth tier of contributions with the benefits calculated at 1% of that tier (currently the three tiers are 90%, 32%, and 15%). I could be convinced to let the income between $117K and $250K fall under the 15% calculation depending on how the numbers break.

The general fund will need to find $150B/yr for the next 20 years approximately (starting in about 3 to 4 years) to meet the obligations that the Trust Fund holds in Treasuries. Any cap removal and discussion of additional benefits needs to recognize this issue.

I am totally behind expanding benefits to guarantee a minimum income of $15K/person (up from about the $10K right now).

I don't agree with increasing benefits for all retirees. Frankly there is not enough money available to do this. I am not entirely sure you can project the implications of a minimum wage increase to $15/hr. I can see lots of jobs that are currently $10/hr going to automation if the salary is increased by a 1/3. I am in favor of the change, but the implications will need to be recognized.