The following op-ed is by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois). He believes that though an open debate the current Congress can come together and find a workable plan to fund Social Security far into the future. I'm not sure that's true, but he deserves to have his say. Here is what he has written:
Seventy million Americans count on Social Security to afford food, medication, housing and utilities. It’s a bedrock promise to Americans that, after a lifetime of hard work, they will have a secure retirement.
The program is there for the grandfather who worked his whole life trying to provide for his family but has seen his savings run out. Or the widowed mother who stayed home to raise four children and is counting on Social Security for retirement income.
But according to a report published last month by the Social Security Board of Trustees, the program will face a shortfall in just six years, when its trust fund runs out. In 2032, Social Security will only be able to pay 78% of benefits. That means seniors and other beneficiaries across the country would see an average cut of $450 per month. For many, losing $450 means rent or utility bills or a prescription is no longer affordable. And that cut would especially hurt the nearly one out of five Social Security beneficiaries with no other source of income.
Some critics believe the most prudent course of action is to delay the legislative process of extending solvency. They believe that a more favorable balance of power in Washington will yield their desired policy outcome. But if Democrats refuse to act until we control both chambers of Congress and the presidency — a feat that would take at least two election cycles — we run the risk of skating even closer to the insolvency cliff.
Meanwhile, delaying action makes the policy choices more drastic. Had Congress acted in 2009, a payroll tax increase of less than 2% would have kept Social Security solvent for 75 years. Today, payroll taxes would have to increase by nearly 4.5% to close that gap.
Republicans and Democrats alike were elected to make responsible decisions for Americans. If we want real solutions to rescue Social Security before it is too late, we need buy-in from both parties.
Sixteen years ago, Congress had an opportunity to preserve Social Security through the bipartisan group known as the Simpson-Bowles Commission. I served on that panel. The plan we came up with was far from perfect, but it would have secured the program an additional 75 years of solvency. Ultimately, it failed to garner enough support, and our inaction led to today’s challenge.
It’s easy to be cynical about the problem. That’s why one-third of young Americans think Social Security will not be around for them when they retire. Faced with the skyrocketing costs of attending college, buying a home and starting a family, they feel the deck is unfairly stacked against them.
But we do not need to resign ourselves to a doomsday scenario. Nor do we need to wait for the elusive “perfect political moment.” Many of my colleagues have worked for years on serious, meaningful proposals to address the looming insolvency cliff. Yet, they’ve never received votes on the Senate Floor. We do not have a shortage of ideas; we have a lack of will.
Recently, with the support of a bipartisan group of senators, I introduced legislation to ensure Congress finally takes up this challenge. The PROMISE Act would open the Senate and House to debate and vote on different proposals in a transparent and bipartisan way. Under my bill, the fixes proposed in recent years would get the chance for full debate and consideration.
Some of my closest allies may think this notion — restoring the Senate to its long-forgotten moniker of the most deliberative body on earth — is too radical. I respectfully disagree.
Under our bipartisan plan, we would gather public input and testimony, the Senate and House committees would hold hearings, mark-up and adopt amendments, debate and consider alternate proposals on the floor — for days and days if necessary. Any measure would still need a filibuster-proof 60 votes on the floor. Such extensive deliberation is almost unheard of in today’s Senate, but it is sorely needed.
And we would do it all in a transparent way. Amendments for consideration would be published in the Congressional Record — a far cry from the backroom, late-night, secret deals for which Capitol Hill is often critiqued.
While some may disagree with this approach, I trust we share the goal of protecting and preserving Social Security for all. Americans sent us to Congress not to observe problems, but to solve them, and there is no greater long-term challenge before Congress than saving this program. Let’s not run away from our responsibility.
