Smarter Ideas| More...
 
Sam Stein
Sam Stein
Become a Fan Get Email Alerts from this Reporter

Boehner, Pence: Raising Social Security Retirement Age An Option

First Posted: 08- 8-10 12:37 PM   |   Updated: 08- 9-10 10:42 AM

What's Your Reaction?
Important
 Funny
 Typical
 Scary
 Outrageous
 Amazing
 Innovative
 Finally
Read More: 70 Retirement, Boehner Mike Pence, Boehner Social Security, John Boehner, Pence Social Security, Social Security, Social Security Retirement Age, Politics News
John Boehner
Minority Leader John Boehner. (AP Photo)

Top Republican leaders in the House offered a fairly strong signal on Sunday that they would favor a down-the-road raising of the Social Security retirement age as part of an effort to revamp the entitlement program.

Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said it was time "for the American people to have an adult conversation about the problems that we face" with respect to Social Security's solvency.

"We also know these programs are unsustainable in their current form," said the Ohio Republican. Asked specifically if he supports raising the retirement age to, say, 70, Boehner replied: "There are a lot of options on how you solve these, but I don't want to put the cart before the horse."

This wasn't the first time Boehner had broached the idea of raising Social Security's retirement age. The Minority Leader offered the same suggestion in an interview in late June. Back then, Democrats jumped on the remark, arguing that it was (one) not based in a realistic assessment of Social Security's solvency and (two) insensitive to those people who worked all their lives with an eye towards having a financially-stable retirement. It would be far from surprising if the same arguments are made in the days ahead.

Indeed, a platform of raising of the retirement age presents tricky politics for Republicans. Later during the "Meet the Press" program, Boehner's deputy, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind), was asked if he supported the idea. The Indiana Republican stammered around for a bit, echoing the same talking point concerning the need for "an adult conversation about domestic spending and entitlements."

Pinned down by host David Gregory, he ultimately replied: "I am for reforming our public entitlements for Americans who are far away from retirement. We need to keep promises to seniors that have been made, make sure that people who are counting on Medicare, Social Security have the benefits that they have. But for younger Americans, absolutely yes, we ought to bring real reform for the sake of future generations of Americans to get spending under control."

Get HuffPost Politics On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz! Subscribe to the new HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Top Republican leaders in the House offered a fairly strong signal on Sunday that they would favor a down-the-road raising of the Social Security retirement age as part of an effort to revamp the enti...
Top Republican leaders in the House offered a fairly strong signal on Sunday that they would favor a down-the-road raising of the Social Security retirement age as part of an effort to revamp the enti...
Related News On Huffington Post:
 

Read more from Huffington Post bloggers:
Richard (RJ) Eskow

Richard (RJ) Eskow: If We Put 10 Million Americans Back to Work, That Social Security "Shortfall" Would Disappear

Why aren't those who profess such concern about Social Security's fiscal soundness pushing for more stimulus spending? Could it be because their real concern isn't protecting Social Security?

Report Corrections
What's Your Reaction?
Important
 Funny
 Typical
 Scary
 Outrageous
 Amazing
 Innovative
 Finally

More in Politics...


 
Comments
3,734
Pending Comments
0
View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »   (84 total)
  1 of 21  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
optimist7   05:34 PM on 8/08/2010
406 Fans
The average life expectancy in the US is 78.2, for men it's 75.6, and for women it's 80.8. If the retirement age were raised to 70, that would mean that men could look forward to about 5 or 6 years of retirement, and women would have about 10 or 11 golden years. 10 years vs. 15 years might be bad enough, but 5 vs 10 seems much worse.

How many times have we heard of someone who retired and was  Read More...
View Thread  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReElectNoOne   2 minutes ago (12:53 PM)
72 Fans
Boehner lies...as usual.

Social Security is on good footing and can sustain through the tough economy and still pay full benefits until at least 2037. Politicians cannot raid OUR surplus which is part of what ticks Republicans off. Boehner and his ilk would prefer to find a way to hand the current $2.3Trillion dollars over to one of their private insurance buddies where it no longer has any government protections. Remember how these banks and insurance companies wiped out billions in private retirement accounts prior to 2009 and caused our recession? Do you really think it would be a good idea to put our only safe nest egg into their basket?

SS does not contribute to our deficit because it is self-funded through it's own separate tax paid into from workers and employers.

It is not an "entitlement", a word republicans love to throw out there as a bad thing. It is an insurance policy citizens pay premiums into then collect when they retire.

http://www.joethevoter.org/busted-social-security-myths.html
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReElectNoOne   01:18 PM on 8/18/2010
72 Fans
For starers they lie. Social Security is not in trouble.
http://www.joethevoter.org/busted-social-security-myths.html

It is also not an "entitlement" it is a retirement insurance that recipients pay into while they work.

Raising the retirement age only keeps jobs from becoming available for younger workers looking to move up. The older workers remain on these jobs at higher salaries than their replacements would start at thus costing employers more money for salary as well as FICA with holdings.
Permalink  |
photo
TheMightyMidget   07:49 PM on 8/11/2010
293 Fans
I support the idea of cutting government spending in the long run, though now is absolutely not the time to do it. Still - again, long term - spending is going to have to come down.

HOWEVER.... the conservatives who claim to say that the deficit is a disaster and we need to cut spending siimpy cannot be taken seriously until they advocate HUGE cuts in military spending. Forget the fact that these people CAUSED the massive deficit with their unfunded tax cuts for the uber-rich and the unfunded prescription drug plan that, together, turned Clinton's budget surplus into a massive deficit... forget all that and just take what they say about total government spending at face value focus on our deficit problem. Once again, they CANNOT be taken seriously until they advocate across the board cuts in military spending.

Defending our country may be required by the Constitution, but spending roughy the same as every other country on earth COMBINED is not. It is absurd, and it is unsustainable.
Permalink  |
photo
vetxcl   11:59 AM on 8/10/2010
31 Fans
why raise the retirement age, when for all intents and purposes it's already been raised? what economy does bonehead live in?
Permalink  |
photo
vetxcl   11:57 AM on 8/10/2010
31 Fans
have another drink bonehead.
Permalink  |
photo
vetxcl   11:56 AM on 8/10/2010
31 Fans
that's your repugnicant party. new ways to screw the little guy.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
oldngrumpy   02:11 AM on 8/10/2010
483 Fans
A couple of things to add to this thread that may not have been touched upon yet.

Remember that Medicare is tied to Social Security eligibility, so that raising the qualifying age for SS raises the age for Medicare as well. Even those lucky enough to have good jobs that they can remain in until they are 70 will be hard hit with increases in their insurance premiums, along with everyone else. The health care costs of those between 65 and 70 will be more than all the other age groups combined. Are you "ALL" ready for your premiums to double?

Social Security benefits are computed largely from the most recent years of employment. That hedged against inflation when employers were loyal to employees and allowed them to work at their career until retirement. Now, those between 65 and 70 are most likely to be employed part time or at an extremely reduced wage from their prior years. This will have the net effect of "CUTTING BENEFITS" as the drag of being a Wal Mart greeter on the average income takes it's toll. Many would be better off in terms of total benefits to take early retirement and then combine the lower paying job with the SS payments.
Permalink  |
DinkSinger   11:55 PM on 8/09/2010
43 Fans
Under current law the full retirement age has already increased from 65 to 66 and will increase again to 67. Individuals born in 1937 or earlier were eligible to receive the full benefit at age 65 and 80% of that benefit at age 62. It was increase by 2 months each year for those born between 1938 and 1943, and is now holding steady at 66 for those born between 1944 and 1954, with a 75% benefit at age 62 and a 93.3% benefit at age 65. In 2021 it will begin increasing again, by two months for each year for those born between 1955 and 1960. For those born in 1960 and after full retirement age will be 67, with a 70% benefit available at age 62, and an 86.7% benefit at 65.

The most immediate problem is not Social Security Old Age Insurance or even Medicare Part A Hospital Insurance, but Social Security Disability Insurance. The trustees report that the actuaries project the DI trust fund will be exhausted by 2019. That gives us only 8 years to find a fix. Increasing the full retirement age makes the problem with the disability trust fund worse, not only because some people who would have retired will become disabled, but because the disabled are converted from receiving disability benefits to receiving old age benefits (in the same amount) when they reach full retirement age.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
oldngrumpy   12:49 AM on 8/10/2010
483 Fans
SSI for low income and disabled citizens is paid out of the general fund with state participation. Other than that, you are correct in your statement.

I might add that since Social Security benefits are calculated as a ratio to income in the last few years of employment, (intended to be a hedge against inflation in a labor market that valued employees and allowed them to work at their jobs until retirement), most seniors will experience a "CUT" in average income during that time and a reduction in benefits. Greeting customers at WalMart usually just doesn't have the same wage scale as the previous career path of the greeter. Those who anticipate maximum benefits might want to consult with an advisor before taking that greeter job. You might be far ahead of the game by taking your early retirement and combining it with the greeter salary for a few years, even with the 25% penalty.
Permalink  |
DinkSinger   02:16 AM on 8/10/2010
43 Fans
I didn't say anything about SSI. I was taking about SSDI, Social Security Disability Insurance, which has its own trust fund just like SSOASI, Social Security Old Age and Survivor Insurance, and is funded by its own payroll tax. Currently the tax rate for OASI is 5.3% and the DI rate is 0.9%. SSDI covers individuals who have earned enough credits to qualify. An individual earns up to 4 credits a year based on wages. Currently the rate is one credit for each $1,100 in wages, so anyone who has $4,400 in wages this year will earn 4 credits. The number of credit required for eligibility increases with age, for example at age 24 you need only 6 credits. At age 62 you need 40 credits. SSI is paid to disabled individuals who are not covered under SSDI. If the SSDI payment is less than SSI, SSI makes up the difference

Social Security benefits are not calculated based on income in the last few years of employment. They are based on up to 35 years of earnings with each year adjusted for average wage (not price) inflation based on the year the worker turns 60. If a worker has more that 35 years of earnings the 35 highest adjusted earnings amounts are used. So anyone who has already worked 35 years will not lose benefits by taking a low paying job.

Here's a link to two examples of benefit calculations:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/retirebenefit1.html
Permalink  |
photo
rf-hawaii   11:38 PM on 8/09/2010
157 Fans
Republicans lying up a storm once again.

The facts:

http://pol.moveon.org/ssmyths/?id=22140-5622395-M2fin5x&t;=1
Permalink  |
DinkSinger   12:40 AM on 8/10/2010
43 Fans
The picture is not quite as bleak as the Republicans, Blue Dogs, and New Democrats like to paint it, but it is not as rosy as moveon.org is saying.

As I commented above, the Social Security Disability Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted by the start of 2019. That is eight years from now and the problem has to be fixed quickly.

It is true that the latest estimate is the old age trust fund will not be exhausted until about 2040, but the changes needed to make a fix need a long lead time. The changes that were adopted in 1983 will not be completely implemented until 2027. That's 44 years and we only have about 30 years until the trust fund is gone. The fact that in 2040 Social Security will still be able to pay out 75% of the benefit is not really comforting. Imagine being 91 years old, as my mother is today and I will be in 2040, if I live that long, and facing a 25% cut in a major portion of your income with additional cuts required every year thereafter. If that were to happen to today, my family would have to move Mom to a much less expensive assisted living facility. It would also be disastrous for the economy.

Our government does owe the money to the trust fund and it is "off-budget" but paying it back requires getting money from somewhere, higher taxes, cuts in discretionary spending, or borrowing.
Permalink  |
DinkSinger   01:19 AM on 8/10/2010
43 Fans
The worst distortion on the moveon.org page is the statement "Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s." It is completely untrue. In 1929 through 1931 according to the Census Bureau the life expectancy of a 65 year old white female in the United States was 13.43 years. (I could not find combined life expectancies for all those in the U.S. but those for white males, black males and black females, then as now were shorter.) In 2006 according to the Centers for Disease Control, the life expectancy of a 65 year old in the U.S. was 18.5 years and for a white female was 19.8 years. So people are living at least 38% longer past retirement age and white women are living 48% longer past retirement age.
Permalink  |
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
atexasdem   02:04 AM on 8/10/2010
117 Fans
Excellent post and fanned. Have you researched the effect on the fund if the "cap" were eliminated and SS was with held on all income not just the first 100K?
Permalink  |
photo
scorpioman   07:54 PM on 8/09/2010
111 Fans
Americans are NOT living longer! It's all a BIG LIE! DO NOT BELIEVE THE RETHUGS-EVER!
Permalink  |
DinkSinger   10:27 PM on 8/09/2010
43 Fans
According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 1966 the average life expectancy of a 65 year old American was 14.6 years; in 1999, 17.7 years; and in 2006, 18.5 years. So older Americans are living 26.7% longer than they did 40 years ago. The major reason is Medicaid, although there are other factors like the decline in smoking and the improvement in air and water quality.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
oldngrumpy   12:53 AM on 8/10/2010
483 Fans
Not to be argumentative, but could you provide a link to that? I looked all over for some statistics dealing with life expectancy "beyond" retirement and could find nothing. It would help me greatly in another area I am working on.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
GoDogGo   07:37 PM on 8/09/2010
163 Fans
Personally, I think this is inevitable. We simply don't have the economic means given the current SS tax rates to sustain the existing age requirements.

The practical problem of this is that it's become nearly impossible to find a job after age 60. Nobody hires 60+'s anymore and the hole that leaves only makes this situation more dire.
Permalink  |
photo
scorpioman   08:00 PM on 8/09/2010
111 Fans
wrong. they need to LOWER the retirement age!
Permalink  |
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
crm2008   08:49 PM on 8/09/2010
28 Fans
Yes. This would open up a lot more jobs much faster and the college grads can find jobs. There's no need for anyone to work until they're 70 years old unless they really want to, especially if they've put in 25 years or more on the same job and have been paying into SS.
Permalink  |
photo
rf-hawaii   12:10 AM on 8/10/2010
157 Fans
Exactly.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcabowers   07:18 PM on 8/09/2010
285 Fans
We need to increase the level of income which is subject to Social Security taxation. A suggestion would be to tie it to the cost of living or to inflation, some measure of that sort. A major jump would be necessary the first year to account for all the years the level has remained unchanged. There should be an income level at which benefits peak and then begin to decline with increasing income, declining to zero benefits for the very wealthy. Also the retirement age could be indexed to the average life span of an American, increasing when the life span increases, etc. Just ideas.
Permalink  |
DinkSinger   11:08 PM on 8/09/2010
43 Fans
Since 1972 the level of income which is subject to Social Security taxation, officially called the OASDI (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) contribution and benefits base, has been indexed to the percentage increase in average annual wages per worker as measured by the Social Security Administration. As the official name implies as the maximum amount subject to tax is also the maximum amount used in the benefit calculations. Since 2000 the base has increased from $76,200 to $106,800. Many suggest the there should be no limit on the wages and other employment earnings subject to the Social Security tax, only on the amount used in calculating benefits. This is already true for the Medicare tax
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReElectNoOne   01:30 PM on 8/18/2010
72 Fans
With the current FICA tax the fund has generated a $2.3 Trillion surplus which is what keeps SS solvent through 2037 assuming no changes to the economy. One has to hope the job market increases by then and that workers begin paying in again. At the present rate with no change the trust fund, after unemployment is resolved, is project to increase to over $4 trillion dollars.

This huge fund is why republicans are drooling over the prospect of handing our retirement money to private companies to gamble away...like they already did with billions in private pensions.

People fail to realize that corporations have no constitutional obligations to anyone and if SS is privatized we lose any constitution related protections over what happens to the fund or to us.

We must make sure SS always remains a government program with no for-profit private corporate involvement. What could they possibly offer to improve it? Nothing. What could they bring to damage it? Greed and a disregard for recipients. ( Think health insurance with holding coverage to save money )
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christopher Millsap   07:08 PM on 8/09/2010
23 Fans
Of course it's an option...if you want the GoP not to get elected DA. Where are the proposals for cutting governement bloat i.e. 40% reduction in politico's staffs, budgets etc b4 we get hit with this?
Permalink  |
sej100   07:07 PM on 8/09/2010
57 Fans
First we strip the Senate and Congress of their Government paid security benefits, all of them.
Since they no longer represent the PEOPLE, a huge cut in salary is mandated as well. ]
They are overly financed by the corporations as such the people no longer being represented must stop financing them
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcabowers   07:25 PM on 8/09/2010
285 Fans
We ought to apply a means test to their eligibility for government pension. Most of them are millionaires and don't really need the money. If a John Q Citizen, middle class type guy, is ever elected again, he might deserve a full pension as currently structured.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
PolicyWonkette   07:02 PM on 8/09/2010
595 Fans
This article just came out yesterday in the LA Times -- Doubtless the GOP read it. Probably why their trying to drum up the hysteria again.

The myth of the Social Security system's financial shortfall
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20100808,0,1359956.column
Permalink  |
 
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »   (84 total)

Twitter Edition