Carney Op-Ed on Social Security gets something right

Filed in National by on January 13, 2014

I shouldn’t be so surprised, but I am. Carney got the main points right. Social Security isn’t a budget problem, and the long term fix is pretty easy – raise or eliminate the wage cap.

Currently, only the first $113,700 in an individual’s annual wages are taxed to help fund Social Security. By raising or eliminating the payroll cap we can raise hundreds of billions for the Trust Fund and extend the life of the program for nearly 75 more years. To make sure this proposal is fair to people at all income levels, individuals whose wages exceed the current cap could also receive a corresponding increase in benefits.

That’s sounding like a Democrat. (Now if he added that ALL income should be taxed, that would have been mind blowing. So, great… progress. But also backsliding. Get a load of this nonsense:

Bipartisanship is the only way to get things done in a divided Washington. The last time Social Security faced a crisis, Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill created a bipartisan commission that led to the successful 1983 reform of Social Security. If we’re going to fix Social Security now, we need a bipartisan commission once again, separate from any deficit negotiations.

Carney still thinks there are civic minded Republicans out there somewhere. Poor chap.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. puck says:

    “individuals whose wages exceed the current cap could also receive a corresponding increase in benefits.”

    Reverse means-testing? What the hell kind of Democrat proposes that? Leave it to Carney to comfort the comfortable. “Compromises” like this are why you don’t want the solution to depend on Republicans or Carper, Coons, and Carney.

  2. Jim Center says:

    Just called Carney’s DC office to give him an attaboy for stating the best way to fix Social Security was to eliminate the payroll cap.
    Then I slammed him on this phony “bipartisan” crap. I asked the staffer why you should ever try to work with people who want to destroy that which you want to succeed? So a bipartisanship proposal to fix Social Security should only half break it in order to get a compromise?

  3. bamboozer says:

    “Bipartisanship” is a Carney favorite, and I dare say so is “Impossible Dream”. Republicans are fighting a war against everything they hate and Social Security has been on their kill list for over 75 years, they will fight any thing that increases the taxes of their owners, the rich and super rich.

  4. puck says:

    The rich SHOULD disproportionately fund Social Security, considering that they already Hoovered up all our pensions.

  5. Jason330 says:

    Puck…Dude… Reverse means-testing? What the hell kind of Democrat proposes that?

    Seriously? We’ve been in the wilderness so long, I’ll take it.

  6. cassandra_m says:

    We still want John Carney to put his money where his mouth is and co-sponsor H.R.3118 – Strengthening Social Security Act of 2013. As of today, there are 47 House so-sponsors. Perhaps Mr. Carney could put his bi-partisanship to the test and round up his pals of the other side to co-sponsor too.

  7. jason330 says:

    “Perhaps Mr. Carney could put his bi-partisanship to the test and round up his pals of the other side to co-sponsor too.”

    I lol’ed. Carney’s sensible Republican pals are the new “Canadian girlfriend”

Switch to our mobile site