Momentum builds to delay Social Security

July 16, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Quietly, politicians are beginning to join economists and other experts who for years have urged ratcheting up Social Security retirement ages to prevent the program from sinking into permanent deficits beginning in 2016.

Last month, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, floated the idea of raising the retirement age. Days later, Minority Leader John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, suggested raising the age to 70 from the current range of 66 to 67 for phasing in full benefits. This week, a Texas member of the House, Sam Johnson, also raised the possibility.

In recent days other political leaders have thought aloud about the idea, revealing that not only is the idea bipartisan, but it also might be considered one of the easiest ways to keep the nation from adding to its spiraling deficit.

Europe arrived at this party earlier. Greek officials want to stop people from getting away with retiring at 58 instead of the official age of 65. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy has proposed raising the retirement age from 60 to 62. In Spain, the talk is about 65 to 67.

What are your thoughts? Should the retirement age be raised here? And what about the proposals to phase in retirement earlier for poor people and those whose bodies are worn out sooner by manual labor?

Here’s another question. Should high-profile Indiana pols like Richard Lugar, Evan Bayh and Mike Pence—all of them fiscally conservative to one degree or another—be in the forefront of this movement?

  • A different solution
    It seems it's also a bipartisan idea that you can't raise the amount of income subject to social security withholding. That should come first before derailing the retirement plans of many people who are getting close to 62 or 65 or somewhere in that vicinity. The rich don't care if social security benefits are delayed until age 70. It's just walking-around money for them. Sen. Lugar should be front and center in this discussion; Sen. Bayh seems to have checked out; Rep. Pence is on the side of those that already got theirs.
  • Hmmmmmm!
    So let me see,we cut out SS benefits (or delay them) after borrowing that fund into bankruptcy. But, heaven forbid we should ever raise taxes back to what they should have been all along (pre-Bush election buying) to maintain our spending habits.
  • Not going to see a dime
    I'm for raising the retirement age as long it includes all federally elected officials. Whatever age the new retirement is set becomes the maximum age any federal politician can serve in office. The SS system was a Ponzi scheme from the beginning - when it was initially set to receive benefits at age 65 very few Americans lived to age 65. Privatize the entire system including Medicare and Medicaid and see how fast our economy comes out the current depression (it would also speed things up if we had a completely new Congress and President).
  • Being Fair
    Taken by itself, fixing SS doesn't have to be very difficult or painful. Very modest adjustments could put it on a solid footing for the rest of the century. Increase FICA rates by less than 1%, increase the FICA base by less than 10%, base SS payout rates on the CPI-U not wage changes, and change full retirement age from 67 in 2022 to 67 in 2018 and 68 in 2022. That way everyone gives a little bit, but nobody loses much. The vast majority of Americans are fair minded, and are willing to shoulder their share of the load when they see everyone else doing the same.
  • Social Insecurity
    Why can't the gov just raise the amount of income you pay SS tax on? It's ridiculously low now. That's a lot better than forcing people to work an extra 5 years.
  • Why tax?
    Why is it that the first response is to raise the tax base or the tax rate? It seems to me if they would simply lower the cost of living adjustment given each year to social security recipients that would cover the majority of the issue. Also does the government give the option to a wealthy person who does not need social security to opt out of collecting it? If not, this seems reasonable - I would think many wealthy people would opt out of receiving it. The problem may simply be fixed without raising taxes and the wage base. I for one would rather choose to spend my money the way I would like instead of the government choosing it for me.
    TO: The Republican and Democratic Leadership of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives: The Hon. Harry Reid, The Hon. Robert C. Byrd, The Hon. Richard J. Durbin, The Hon. Charles E. Schumer, The Hon. Patty Murray, The Hon. Robert Menendez, The Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, The Hon. Debbie A. Stabenow, The Hon. Jeff Bingaman, The Hon. Blanche L. Lincoln, The Hon. Barbara Boxer, The Hon. Thomas R. Carper, The Hon. Bill Nelson, The Hon. Russ Feingold, The Hon. Mitch McConnell, The Hon. Jon L. Kyl, The Hon. Lamar Alexander, The Hon. John R. Thune, The Hon. John Cornyn, The Hon. John Ensign, The Hon. Nancy Pelosi, The Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, The Hon. James Clyburn, The Hon. John B. Larson, The Hon. Xavier Becerra, The Hon. Chris Van Hollen, The Hon. Rosa DeLauro, The Hon. George Miller, The Hon. John A. Boehner, The Hon. Eric I. Cantor, The Hon. Mike Pence, The Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, The Hon. John R. Carter, The Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter, The Hon. Pete Sessions

    ***Your Name and Address Will Appear Here***

    RE: Stop The Department Of Justiceâ??s Lawsuit Against Arizona. Support The DeMint-Vitter Amendment!

    An ever-growing number of Americans are coming to the unfortunate and inescapable conclusion that the Obama Administrationâ??s lawsuit against the State of Arizona â?? together with its continued refusal to secure the border â?? is nothing more than a political stunt designed to help advance so-called â??Comprehensive Immigration Reformâ?? (Amnesty) through Congress against the wishes of the American people.

    As Senator Jim DeMint recently and correctly put it, â??States like Arizona shouldnâ??t be prosecuted for protecting their citizens when the federal government fails to do so. The federal government is rewarding illegal behavior and encouraging many more to enter our nation illegally when they refuse to enforce our laws. States along the border are facing kidnappings, drug trafficking, human trafficking and gang violence and they have a duty to keep their residents safe. Instead of suing states for doing his job, the President should get serious and stop holding border security hostage to pass amnesty and score points with his liberal base.â??

    Simply put, the administrationâ??s lawsuit against Arizona must be stopped! That is why I urge you to support the amendment introduced by Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC) and David Vitter (R-LA) that would prohibit the Obama Administration, including the Department of Justice and other federal agencies, from participating in and further pursuing lawsuits that seek to invalidate Arizonaâ??s tough new immigration law.

    The American people overwhelming stand in support of Arizona. Itâ??s time for our elected leaders in Washington to stand with us. We are countring on you to support the DeMint-Vitter Amendment (#4464)!


    ***Your Signature Will Appear Here***

Post a comment to this blog

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
  1. I had read earlier this spring that Noodles & Co was going to open in the Fishers Marketplace (which is SR 37 and 131st St, not 141st St, just FYI). Any word on that? Also, do you happen to know what is being built in Carmel at Pennsylvania and Old Meridian? May just be an office building but I'm not sure.

  2. I'm sorry, but you are flat out wrong. There are few tracks in the world with the history of IMS and probably NO OTHER as widely known and recognized. I don't care what you think about the stat of Indy Car racing, these are pretty hard things to dispute.

  3. Also wondering if there is an update on the Brockway Pub-Danny Boy restaurant/taproom that was planned for the village as well?

  4. Why does the majority get to trample on the rights of the minority? You do realize that banning gay marriage does not rid the world of gay people, right? They are still going to be around and they are still going to continue to exist. The best way to get it all out of the spotlight? LEGALIZE IT! If gay marriage is legal, they will get to stop trying to push for it and you will get to stop seeing it all over the news. Why do Christians get to decide what is moral?? Why do you get to push your religion on others? How would legalizing gay marriage expose their lifestyle to your children? By the way, their lifestyle is going to continue whether gay marriage is legalized or not. It's been legal in Canada for quite a while now and they seem to be doing just fine. What about actual rules handed down by God? What about not working on Sundays? What about obeying your parents? What about adultery? These are in the 10 Commandments, the most important of God's rules. Yet they are all perfectly legal. What about divorce? Only God is allowed to dissolve a marriage so why don't you work hard to get divorce banned? Why do you get to pick and choose the parts of the Bible you care about?

  5. Look at the bright side. With the new Lowe's call center, that means 1000 jobs at $10 bucks an hour. IMS has to be drooling over all that disposable income. If those employees can save all their extra money after bills, in five years they can go to the race LIVE. Can you say attendance boost?