Last year the Danish Social Insurance Agency announced that the program loses the opportunity to pay full benefit from and including 2034, one year earlier than previously expected. This means that if no changes is made by Congress, will Social Security have to pay out one bottom benefit amount in 2034.
A member of Congress, rep. John Larson (D-CT), has introduced a bill called Social Security 2100, which is an updated version of a plan he proposed earlier. Larson, chairman of the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee, has held hearings on the new proposal, which Larson says will raise benefits, protect against inflation and repeal Exclusion clause and the State Pension Offsetting.
While these hearings have been held, the proposal has not received a massive amount of media attention, nor has it been embraced as a priority for either the White House or leaders in Congress. A new report examines exactly why that is.
During the weekend Snap was host of the rep. Larson on his podcast and reported about what goes on behind the scenes with the Social Security 2100 proposal. That Snap the report noted that although the bill has more than 200 co-sponsors in the House, it has not yet received a committee vote.
The play gave some blame for the slow motion of the bill at the feet of Wendell Primus, a top House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). The employee, according to the report, is “seen by many in Washington’s world, DC, as a progressive politician who embodies a mindset from the past of the Democratic Party, where all that seemed possible was to prevent cuts in important social programs, rather than offend . “
“My argument is that this takes care of the kids. [Social Security] is the No. 1 anti-poverty program for children, ”Larson told the news media.
The congressman is convinced that the bill will eventually get a vote in Parliament and that it may even serve some Republican votes. Larson noted that the former chairman of the House Freedom Caucus and Trump’s White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, once told him that if Larson’s proposal came to the fore, “you will find that many Republicans will vote for [it]”However, it is not clear whether Meadows’ statement applied to the current version of the bill or earlier.
The plan would have a harder time passing the Senate because of rules that the reconciliation process cannot be used for changes in Social Security. These rules mean that it would be subject to filibuster.
“For all these reasons, the adoption of Larson’s bill – or just forcing Republicans to defeat it – should be a potent issue for Democrats entering the midterm period, especially in an atmosphere where the party desperately needs to demonstrate results. “concluded The Intercept.
Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and splice today . Co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.