The Social Security system doesn't need a whole lot to keep it going according to many, including Robert Reich (Secretary of Labor during President Bill Clinton's Administration) but experts agree it will need "bolstering." It's one of the foundational pillars of retirement planning for the vast majority of citizens in this country, [disclosure: I'm one of them] and as such worthy of attention.
Senator Obama proposes lifting the current cap on the amount of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, currently just under $100,000 which is highly regressive. Those in the best position to contribute by virtue of their comfortable incomes don't want to pay more, presumably, and that includes every U.S. Senator and member of Congress. An upward adjustment to the cap amount, as Reich points out, doesn't have to be "all that much to keep Social Security solvent."
Let's be clear: currently, a person earning over one million dollars annually pays the same amount into the Social Security system as somebody earning $99,000 - is that logical?
Why is there a cap in the first place? If it's not outright eliminated, then even adjusting the cap upward is a straightforward, more progressive approach to the funding, which is precisely what Senator Obama has been advocating. It can be enacted quickly, allowing the women and men elected to look after this country's interests to focus their time on more complex priorities, such as insuring that basic health care is genuinely accessible to every citizen.
In fact, there's no reason this can't be enacted well before the Presidential election, allowing the campaigns and voters to focus elsewhere, too. Spread the word!
Comments are closed for this post.
