As the candidates campaign for federal office, one of the most important issues to Clark County voters will be the future of Social Security. In Clark County, 83,540 people received $107.8 million per month in benefits, according to the Social Security Administration’s December 2014 data, the latest available.
There’s no doubt that Social Security faces a challenge. The oldest baby boomers turn 70 this year, and soon will retire en masse, leaving younger, smaller generations to pay into the Social Security trust fund. What has been a surplus during the boomers’ careers will be a deficit, which will leave the federal government with unpalatable choices to raise taxes or reduce benefits, which could include lower payments or older retirement ages.
So what are the candidates saying about Social Security? The AARP Bulletin recently published guest columns from Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
In her wonky statement, Clinton says that Social Security must continue, and there is no way to accomplish that unless the system increases or expands taxes on high-wage earners. Currently, Social Security taxes are capped for anyone earning more than $118,500 per year. Clinton says she would fight any attempts to privatize all or part of Social Security, oppose reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments, and oppose raising the retirement age.
Finally, Clinton’s advisers said she would advocate for more money to be paid to a surviving spouse, and to give credit toward Social Security benefits for people who were outside the workforce for a number of years while they were acting as family caregivers (stay-at-home moms, for example).
Trump’s statement to AARP lacked specifics, but reiterated his general campaign themes of lowering corporate taxes and renegotiating foreign trade agreements. “If we are able to grow the economy, increase the tax base, bring capital and jobs back to the United States and encourage foreign direct investment, we will shore up our entitlement programs for the time being,” he wrote.
Trump says if the economy grows fast enough, “we will be able to secure Social Security for the future. As our demography changes, a prudent administration would begin to examine what changes might be necessary for future generations.”
The differences in the state Senate race are a little more subtle. Chris Vance, the leading Republican contender, doesn’t address Social Security directly on his campaign website, but The Seattle Times reported this week that, “In a recent talk at an Issaquah retirement community, Vance told the seniors he was a Reagan Republican, but didn’t shy away from his embrace of the Simpson-Bowles plan, even though it includes raising the Social Security retirement age (to 68 by 2050) and raising the cap on taxable income for Social Security, now at $118,500. Such changes are often considered toxic among seniors.”
Democrat Patty Murray, who is seeking her fifth term, is one of the authors of the RAISE Act. Introduced last November, it would increase benefits for older, single women. According to a Time magazine report, unmarried, divorced and widowed Americans would get bigger Social Security checks, while those who were previously married would be able to access a percentage of their ex-spouses’ benefits. The act would be funded by a 2 percent tax on workers earning more than $400,000.
With November’s general election looming, voters should take the time to educate themselves on how their favorite candidates stand on an issue that will be vital to them someday, if not now.
