I spent days trying to get answers from Donald Trump or one of his press secretaries on important issues regarding Social Security. In response, campaign spokesperson Stephen Chan emailed me calling Nikki Haley a “stupid” and “birdbrain,” and then posted several Internet links that did not answer the questions. guided me. Other emails went unanswered.
Barring a major upset, Donald Trump is poised to become the Republican presidential nominee. And if polls and betting markets are to be believed, he has an edge to win the November election.
I don’t think the media’s two main approaches to Trump – denial and hysteria – are helping anyone, especially (a) voters or (b) the media. But if Trump has an even chance of being elected president, and there’s a 100% chance that Social Security will be driven to the brink of bankruptcy while Trump is in the White House, then Trump will answer some obvious questions. I think you should answer.
This is especially true since he attacked Republican voters in South Carolina with a commercial attacking his last remaining rival for the Republican nomination, Nikki Haley, on Social Security.His commercial hinted that Haley would raise people’s retirement age by 10 years Retirement is approaching. No one in Washington that I’ve ever heard from has proposed anything like that or anything like it. I’ve never seen anything to suggest that Haley has said or implied anything like that, no one I know has said it, and she adamantly denies it. Masu.
Surely voters have a right to know where President Trump stands on this issue? Of course, the same applies to Joe Biden. But Biden has at least proposed a payroll tax on people making more than $400,000 a year. Also, I’m not convinced he’ll actually be the Democratic nominee. (The betting market gives him about a 75% chance.)
The question here is what Donald Trump meant when he repeated the line about not “cutting” Social Security. In fact, in a video on his website that his campaign directed me to, he says more specifically: To pay for Joe Biden’s reckless spending.” My italics.
It might sound like he’s saying he doesn’t make anything. change I will not sign a bill that reduces my Social Security benefits and expected future benefits. But strictly speaking, that’s not what he’s saying.he just says he won’t do it “cut“Advantage.
There’s a big difference.
That’s because, under current law, Social Security benefits planned for future retirees will be higher than those currently paid to current retirees. The initial value of each cohort’s benefit increases with the average wage in the economy.
But future governments could save a lot of money simply by eliminating these expected price increases. Alternatively, benefits could be frozen at current levels, but could be increased in line with consumer prices, but no more than that.
While that would represent a significant cut from expected growth, one could plausibly argue that profits are not actually “cut”. They will simply remain the same.
This isn’t a far-fetched idea. It’s something that has confounded Washington for decades. This is something Trump’s old friend, the late broadcaster Rush Limbaugh, often talked about. Limbaugh often joked that Washington is the only place in Washington that calls a raise a “cut” if it’s less than expected.
This includes: Huge Impact on social security budget. Romina Boccia, an analyst at the Libertarian Cato Institute and an expert on the subject, calls this “one of the most powerful reforms Congress can adopt.” This would almost completely eliminate unfunded debt. ”
Even a half-hearted measure that only slows the growth in benefits for the top 70% of earners could have a big impact. According to the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget, a centrist think tank focused on deficit reduction, that alone would fill more than half of the holes in the Social Security budget.
Logical arguments can also be made for changing the social security formula. As Boccia points out, the system of sliding benefits into wages didn’t begin until 1977.
But these savings are coming from somewhere: from future retirees. Eugene Stewell and Karen Smith of the liberal-leaning think tank Urban Institute have those numbers. According to their calculations, under the current system, a couple with an average income of 65 in 2060 will receive an initial benefit that is about 50% larger in real inflation-adjusted dollars than the same couple. You will be expected to receive social security benefits. I turn 65 years old today.
Now, Donald Trump has vowed not to “cut” Social Security benefits. But he has also promised to extend the 2017 tax cuts and even add new ones. The numbers don’t match. The federal government was already on track to achieve mind-boggling levels of national debt. Something has to give.
In line with this policy philosophy, effectively freezing future Social Security benefits is one way to address the problem while technically fulfilling the campaign promise of not “cutting” benefits. right.
That’s why I asked his camp if they would firmly rule this out. So far, they haven’t.
You would expect a “dealer” to be very careful about what they say and what they promise. President Trump would take it as a compliment if I pointed out that people doing business with him should read the fine print over and over again. He himself claims the same thing in his books and elsewhere.
But this isn’t a new vodka business. This is not a casino project. We are exposed to greater risk than some junk bonds. No need to guess. He’s the one running for president, not us. We are waiting for his reply.