Progressives are hailing a New York Times editorial endorsing the expansion of Social Security benefits as an influential boon to a position that, until recently, was relegated largely to liberal think tank and activists.
The editorial published over the weekend encouraged presidential candidates to address Social Security as part of a strategy to confront a growing retirement income crisis, rather than simply as a number of problems to be fixed.
Closing Social Security’s funding gap “can’t be to be undertaken by broadly cutting benefits, ” the paper’s editorial committee told. “In fact, there’s mounting evidence that Social Security, which has become ever more important in retirement, needs to be expanded.”
In fact, theres mounting evidence that Social Security, which has become ever more important in retirement, needs to be expanded. The New York Times editorial board
The editorial from the paper of record marks a takeover for progressive advocacy groups, economists and lawmakers, including Sens. Bernie Sanders( I-Vt .) and Elizabeth Warren( D-Mass .), who have steadily advanced the once-marginal pro-expansion posture into the mainstream.
“Hurray for the Times! I just wish The Washington Post were as enlightened, ” told Nancy Altman, founding co-director of Social Security Works, a nonprofit that convenes a coalition of groups fighting for benefits expansion.
Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and a critic of how the press sometimes encompasses the Social Security debate, underscored the Times’ role as an arbiter of mainstream liberal gues. The longtime proponent of expanding Social Security called the publication’s editorial “hugely important.”
“They’re very much at the center of respectable opinion, ” he told. “If you’re taking a position that they have taken, you’re not considered a nut.”
[ The Times is] very much at the center of respectable opinion. If youre taking a position that they have taken, youre not considered a nut. Dean Baker, the Center for Economic and Policy Research
And “nuts” is what many respectable Washington opinion leaders would have called the position even a few years ago. The Washington Post referred to groups opposed to benefit cuts — ones that didn’t even go so far as to suggest expanding Social Security — as “Social Security denialists” in an August 2010 editorial.
In the deficit-wary, early days of the economic recovery, when the tea party was ascendant and President Barack Obama convened the Bowles-Simpson fiscal committee, the question among both Democrats and Republican was largely not whether Social Security benefits should be cut, but by how much.
The Bowles-Simpson commission recommended dramatic changes to the popular social insurance program in December 2010, including increasing the retirement age to 69, means-testing the advantages and cutting the program’s cost-of-living adjustment by adopting a “chained” Consumer price index.
Sen. Richard Durbin( D-Ill .), a leading Senate liberal and close ally of the chairman, sat on the commission, voted for its controversial recommendations and defended his vote in print.
Although the commission’s proposals never were considered severely by Congress wholesale, Obama offered Republican leaders the chained CPI as a compromise during fiscal cliff negotiations in December 2012.
The president subsequently included it in his fiscal year 2014 budget — proof to many progressives that he actually believed in reducing benefits as a matter of policy.
At that time, Sanders spoke to progressives protesting outside the White House who had delivered over two million signatures against the move. The Times, for its part, also condemned the chained CPI, while connoting it remained open to some other benefit cuts.
Along with the pressure from Obama’s base, the requisite Republican support for revenue increases to complete a “grand bargain” on the budget was once again not forthcoming. The administration shelved the provision the following year, which CNN called “music to liberals’ ears.”
Meanwhile, a counter-offensive was brewing. Social Security Works and its allied organisations began publicly promoting an idea they long had privately supported: that Social Security should be increased in order to combat a growing retirement income gap.
They were fond of quoting many of the same figures the Times put forward in its weekend editorial.
“Currently, 36 percent of retirees rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income; over all, 65 percent of retirees rely on it for more than half of their income, ” the Times noted. “The median monthly benefit hovers around $1,300. ”
And things are getting worse, as the Times observed and these advocates often point out. Most Americans have saved very little for retirement and access to employer-sponsored retirement plan is declining.
About a month before Obama included the chained CPI in his budget for coming fiscal year 2014, progressives determined their first champ of expansion in Congress: Former Sen. Tom Harkin( D-Iowa) introduced a bill that would have expanded benefits across the board and paid for it by lifting the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes.
But the movement to expand benefits truly gained traction when Warren devoted it her rockstar imprimatur in a passionate speech on the Senate floor in November 2013. Warren’s speech was a “real gamechanger” because of her national following, told Altman, who is also a co-author of Social Security Works: Why Social Security Isn’t Going Broke and How Expanding It Will Help Us All .
Support for the position only picked up from there. All but two Senate Democrat present voted for a nonbinding budget amendment Warren introducedin April advocating the “sustainable expansion” of Social Security benefits.
Among the Democratic nominees, Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley( D)have both espoused across-the-board expansion of the program. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said she would “enhance” benefits for the neediest beneficiaries, but has stopped short of the expansion language adopted by her rivals.
For Altman, the Times editorial is at once a sign that Social Security expansion is an idea whose day has come, and a “big step” that will further propel the policy into the mainstream.
“It is a recognition of what has been building all around, ” she said.
But Altman said she will only be satisfied when Republican begin backing expansion of benefits as well.
“The next step is for Republican to jump on this bandwagon, ” she concluded. “It has historically been a bipartisan program. That’s when it will really be front and center mainstream.”
Read more: www.huffingtonpost.com