Democrats try to change conversation on Social Security

For years, most of the talk about Social Security has been about how to deal with its future financial problems. But now some Democratic presidential candidates are changing the conversation by proposing an increase in benefits.

The proposals have raised concerns among budget hawks. But groups that have pushed for an expansion say the program is a lifeline for so many older Americans, it's time for a change.

The prospects of an expansion sets up a clear contrast with Republican hopefuls, some of whom have proposed reductions in the growth of future benefits, means testing for wealthier Americans and raising the retirement age.

Backers of expanding benefits say Americans are ready to see bigger retirement paychecks.

The average benefit for retirees is $1,334 per month. And proponents of an expansion say meager savings in personal and employer-related retirement accounts - part of what they call the 'three-legged stool” of retirement security - are making Social Security more vital than ever.

'For a lot of workers today, that three-legged stool has become a pedestal, and that pedestal is Social Security,” said Dan Adcock, director of government relations and policy for the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

A Social Security report last year said, in 2012, 36 percent of retirees got 90 percent of their income from the program. Sixty-five percent got at least half their income from it.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, a Democratic candidate for president, is a leader in pushing for expansion.

'At a time when more than half of the American people have less than $10,000 in savings and senior poverty is increasing, we should not be talking about cutting Social Security benefits. We should be talking about expanding benefits to make sure that every American can retire with dignity,” Sanders said earlier this year.

In March, he introduced a bill to boost benefits by about $65 per month for most recipients. He also would increase cost of living adjustments and set a minimum benefit aimed at reducing the poverty rate among seniors.

Rival Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland, also has called for an expansion and said Democtats should be 'unabashed” about it, an apparent allusion to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. O'Malley aides said he would offer a detailed plan later.

Clinton has said she would 'enhance” Social Security, but she hasn't offered a detailed plan, either.

In New Hampshire recently, she said the program needs to be strengthened as part of a wider goal of enhancing retirement savings. And she suggested it may not be working for older women who have only had limited work experience.

'They're having a really hard time of it,” she said.

All this comes amid a looming financial challenge for Social Security.

The program trustees said in a report last year if nothing is done by 2033, resources only will be sufficient to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits.

In addition, the program's disability programs faces a shortfall later this year.

Sanders and O'Malley both have proposed raising the cap on Social Security payroll taxes. Currently, the tax is only applied to the first $118,500 of income. Sanders has proposed applying it to all income high than $250,000.

Critics say that would amount to a huge tax increase that would hurt the economy.

But there are others who also worry expanding Social Security benefits for all would simply funnel public resources toward people who don't need it: the wealthy.

'I'm for raising benefits for the poorest of seniors,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. But she adds, she doesn't believe the program should push more money at 'the Bill Gates of the world.”

MacGuineas said federal resources are scarce, that 'you can't raise taxes on the rich for every priority,” and public investments are needed for workers and the next generation.

The group with the highest poverty rates is children, not seniors, she said.

For years, Republican presidential candidates have talked about changing Social Security to allow people to divert some of their payroll taxes into private accounts. President George W. Bush proposed it in 2005, but the plan was fiercely resisted by Democrats and went nowhere.

Now, some GOP presidential candidates are getting more aggressive with initiatives aimed at reining in future Social Security costs.

When he was in Davenport about a week ago, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida said that for younger Americans, he would raise the retirement age by a year, and he suggested future benefits could be reduced from what they otherwise would be.

'People my age and younger, people in my generation and those that will follow have to accept that our Social Security and Medicare is going to work differently than our parents ...,” Rubio said.

He said the changes were modest and save the 80-year-old program.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has gone further. He has proposed reducing benefits for seniors with non-Social Security income of more than $80,000 and would eliminate benefits to people whose non-Social Security income surpassed $200,000.

He said that would affect about 2 percent of retirees.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has stood out among Republican candidates in pushing against major changes to the program.

How this all plays out politically is not clear. Often, Social Security drifts into the background once a general election campaign starts up.

Donna Hoffman, head of the political science department at the University of Northern Iowa, said conservatives have been successful in pushing the argument that Social Security is in trouble.

Even President Barack Obama floated a plan to reduce future benefits, an effort that failed.

The challenge for Democrats who are proposing expansion, Hoffman said, is to avoid being characterized as tax-and-spend liberals.

Instead, she believes the issue will be framed as a question of income inequality.

'I think subtly you've seen the debate shift a bit,” she said.