Social Secure Reform: the Need is Clear, the Approach is Not
While it’s an absolute pleasure to see the amount of attention focused in the 116th Congress on dealing with Social Security’s long-term solvency issue, it remains disheartening to also see the absence of clear bipartisanship and what appear to be vast differences of opinion on fundamental issues, like taxation, benefit expansion and so on. Bernice Napach, senior writer at ThinkAdvisor, in an article posted today on thinkadvisor.com, takes a look at this divide, contrasting segments of the Social Security 2100 Act, the SECURE Act, and other avenues of thought, stressing the importance of timing. With the most recent round of reform occurring 45 years ago, the proximity of the program’s 2034 projected reserve depletion will not leave much room for exploring options. Her article underscores this timing issue with a quote from the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, Stephen Goss, ““Enacting changes well before reserve depletion, even with delayed effective dates, will allow more options to be considered, more advance warning for those affected and a more gradual phase-in of adjustments.”
AMAC has been at the forefront trying to strengthen Social Security by developing and proposing its Social Security Guarantee. AMAC has been discussing and continues to discuss this common-sense solution with Congressional Representatives in its efforts to protect America’s senior citizens who rely on Social Security. To review AMAC‘s Social Security Guarantee, click here.
Notice: The link provided above connects readers to the full content of the posted article. The URL (internet address) for this link is valid on the posted date; socialsecurityreport.org cannot guarantee the duration of the link’s validity. Also, the opinions expressed in these postings are the viewpoints of the original source and are not explicitly endorsed by AMAC, Inc.; the AMAC Foundation, Inc.; or socialsecurityreport.org.