Fixing Social Security: Agreements and Disagreements
It’s apparent that there is fairly universal agreement on the need to “fix” Social Security. This point was driven home once again by the program’s 2018 Trustees Report, with its repeated warning to Congress that “time is running out.” Ctnewsjunkie reporter Peter Urban, in a post today on www.ctnewsjunkie.com, reiterated the concerns expressed by Stephen Goss, Social Security’s chief actuary, in a report to the House Ways and Means Committee, noting that the absence of corrective action is expected to lead to an across-the-board benefit cut in the future. Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Sam Johnson (R-TX) likewise expressed a sense of urgency in his opening remarks at yesterday’s hearing (see remarks here) before introducing Goss’s testimony.
And, while there’s agreement on the need for correction, there’s also substantial disagreement on the pathway to a solution. Urban’s post summarizes the positions taken by Representative John Larson (D-CT) and Johnson, and explains the differences between the two. Read Urban’s post here, and note that he includes links to documents describing the primary components of each party’s solution.
After checking these articles out, note that the Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC) has developed a bipartisan compromise bill, titled “Social Security Guarantee Act of 2017,” taking selected portions of the Johnson and Larson bills and merging them with the Association’s original legislative framework to create the new Act. AMAC representatives have been resolute in their mission to get the attention of lawmakers in Washington, meeting with many, many congressional offices and their legislative staffs over the past several years. Learn more about AMAC’s proposed solution here…