Has Hillary Clinton Has Ruled Out Expanding Social Security?

[Cosmic Kitten]

Will we have to elect her to learn
where she stands on protecting
our social safety net?

This was the line in Talking Points Memo, back in April:

Hillary Clinton is not taking a position just yet on Social Security expansion, an issue with growing support in the Democratic Party that several of her prospective presidential primary rivals have endorsed.

The Clinton campaign told TPM on Thursday, in response to a query, that the Democratic frontrunner “will have a lot to say” about the issue and emphasized her opposition to privatizing Social Security.



“Explore ways to enhance” most definitely does not mean “expand,” especially when Clinton plans to include “saving” in any plan to allow working people — since “working families” doesn’t include those who aren’t married — to “retire with dignity.”
Clinton May Be Leaning Toward “Guaranteed Retirement Accounts” (GRAs)

Check out this beat sweetener for potential charismatic technical spokesperson, Teresa Ghilarducci, in the National Journal (hat tip AH), where we see the Clinton code of omerta fully operative:

[Ghilarducci] will not talk about how many times—or when, or where—she has met with Clinton … Though Clinton has begun her campaign on a decidedly liberal note, it’s anything but clear how far she’ll go in adopting the kind of agenda that Ghilarducci advocates. Clinton gave “retirement security” a shout-out in her campaign launch speech on Roosevelt Island, but there were no specifics. [That’s putting it mildly. –lambert] “The retirement issue will come a little bit later in the campaign, when more people are paying attention,” Ghilarducci says.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/07/will-hillary-clinton-adopt-hedgie-billionaire-john-arnolds-schemes-for-retirement-insecurity.html

Will Hillary put our retirement funds
in the hands of greedy Wall st donors?

Will Hillary allow middle men to siphon off
profits at the expense of those most in need???

VOTE FOR HER to find out!

[marym625]

1. Too scary to even consider

[Cosmic Kitten]

2. It's appalling and revealing

Hillary is less concerned about
the average American than her
Wall St cronies.

[djean111]

3. My rule of thumb - when a politician mentions Social Security without saying expand and raise

the cap - if they say enhance, strengthen, secure, really, any other verb - I immediately back away from them.

Remember what drivel was used to promote chained CPI? They were going to "strengthen" Social Security by paying out less. And supplementary savings plans? Unless actually administered by the Social Security administration, they would be farmed out to Wall Street, and would incur lots of lovely fees for them. And taxpayers would be on the hook for bad investments, either by lower payouts, or making up the difference due to guaranteed rate of return.

[Cosmic Kitten]

4. Good rule.

We may need a political-speak-to-English
translator moving forwards?

Or, vote for Hillary....
to find out where she stands

[daybranch]

7. my, my for such a knowledgeable person

touted as such a good administrator, a tough negotiator etc., just back from a listening tour to hear what other brilliant minds like her own believe about issues of the day, and the best campaign staff money can buy, she sure has very little to actually say.
I actually think she is playing ransom politics, if particular groups become very important to her campaign as volunteers etc. she will throw them a few crumbs assuming she can do this with consent of rich donors. Hillary is very calculating and will say or do whatever it takes to be elected. She never actually forgave Bill for being President first, after all as he said she was smarter than him and believes that her gender was insulted when he was elected before her. This continued slight to her gender continued when she was unsuccessful with her health care activities and may even reasonably be the fact she lost the battle , although personally her husband ran on a platform of enhancing government services such as welfare so maybe the timing and his stated positions which have been an affront to his donors. Then the Monica Lewinsky affair wherein she was forced to play the good forgiving wife but made to look weak for staying with a husband guilty over and over of affairs but now having them in the White House for the whole world to know. Being the dutiful wife was just another reminder of the moral pain inflicted on females. She was attacked for her gender in the white house when she was portrayed as unfeminine and too outspoken. Then she went into a campaign for a senate seat and with help of past money connections and support of liberal organizations beat a female baiting, obnoxious male supremacist for senator. She spent her time in Washington toeing the 3rd way policies and playing to her base of female supporters and was very prolific in doing so, but never challenging the economic staus quo in any significant way. She was able to work across the aisle because there really was no aisle between her views and what republicans believed were necessary accommodations to pacify a population of voters who were upset with the donor class whom supported both Hillary and the republicans. Then she ran for the democratic nomination etc. . I guess you can see where I am going, yes she is unjustifiably a victim of gender discrimination but that in no way means we should let that make us excuse the positions she is taking which create more and more victims of both sexes. Her jokes about comparisons between her hair and Trumps and her little add ons such as especially for women show she wants to continue playing a victim to garner womens support while actually promising nothing. We cannot let sympathy for her gender excuse her stances which favor the rich over our people. I am a democrat but if Hillary runs I may have to vote third party of some type in the belief that it really will not matter whether we elect another Romney type or Hillary, they all seem to dance to the tune played by their donor class.

[Cosmic Kitten]

8. If you can't take the time to format, I can't take the time to read a brick of text

[Divernan]

16. A good post, but PLEASE use the edit function to format it

into multiple paragraphs.
Thanks!

[zeemike]

5. You got it.

The SS trust fund has so much potential for profit for Wall Street...you can skim a lot from 2 trillion dollars, and gamble wildly with it when the taxpayer will cover your ass.
It's like the holey grail of the greedy.

[zentrum]

6. ^^THIS^^

[raindaddy]

9. But Hillary is the lessor of two evils candidtate...

We KNOW the Republicans would love to hand Social Security over to Wall Street. Hillary's calculated, wait until I'm President is way less evil.

We KNOW where the Republicans stand on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Hillary's calculated, wait until I'm President is way less evil.

We KNOW where the Republicans stand on the TPP...............

Besides the media and many of the other "lessor of two evil Democrats" insist that the other Democratic candidate who is upfront about where he stands on ALL of the issues isn't electable.

[blackspade]

10. This is why there needs to be a basic party platform.

Candidates can add to it, but not subtract.

[Agschmid]

11. Party platform or not...

What any candidate promises may or may not become a reality, remember a President is only 1/3 of the government.

[blackspade]

15. So we should not have a basic platform?

A platform that forms the backbone of at least 2/3 of the government?
I'm not just talking about the President here, I'm talking about the whole party.
Basics people, basics.

[Agschmid]

17. No we should, and ASFAIK we do...

Doesn't mean we follow it unfortunately.

[blackspade]

20. Then those who don't follow it aren't really Democrats.

If the Party adopts a basic platform, that should be the baseline for our candidates.
If you can't stick to a basic Democratic platform then you're not a Democrat and need to run for another party.

[Agschmid]

21. Again the president is 1/3 of government...

If we don't do our job and elect a democratic government then they can't always follow the platform, they go in with their hands tied.

I don't think alienating people from the party is the way to win an election.

[blackspade]

23. 2/3: Congress and the President

Why are you focusing so narrowly on the Presidency?

We routinely elect candidates who don't/won't follow even the most basic of Democratic principals.
You alienate people when your core values are a mass of confusion and contradictions.

[Agschmid]

24. Because the OP was about the presidency...

[fbc]

12. You'll have to wait for that answer until she becomes president!

[Divernan]

13. If HRC/any Repub.is president,take your age 62 option to retire AT ONCE

Because there will be changes made and they will benefit Wall Street, not you. As the age levels at which to collect social security have crept up, I've been amazed that the greedy political class have not completely gotten rid of the early option, or increased the age requirement for eligibility for early retirement.

If You Retire Early
You can retire at any time between age 62 and full retirement age. However, if you start benefits early, your benefits are reduced a fraction of a percent for each month before your full retirement age. For those born after 1960, the retirement age for full benefits has gone from 65 to 67, i.e, two full years.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/retire/agereduction.html

I am not a gambler - never even bought a single lottery ticket in my life. When I hit 61, I talked to a retirement consultant, considered my projected life expectancy (mid-90's), the financial difference in reduced payments versus full payments, considered my health and what activities I could enjoy between the early retirement age of 62 & the full retirement age (for me) of age 65 years and 8 months. I boogied the hell out of a high stress environment working for narcissistic assholes (I worked for the state legislature), retired at age 62, (some 10 years ago) & have never regretted it.

Those "extra" 3 years and 8 months of my retirement were the very best years of my retirement - a combination of good health & good investment income from my retirement savings - prior to the 2008 crash. My savings got wiped out, but hey, the $$$ I spent on foreign travel & scuba diving would have been wiped out anyway - my involuntary contribution to the transfer of wealth to those one percenters who greatly increased their income - lookin' at you, Bill & Hillary!

Here's what you're gambling on if you do not take early retirement.

1. That you will not become unemployed after the age of 62.
2. That the govt. will not completely eliminate the early retirement option, or increase the age at which is an option.
3. That the age levels at which you can claim full benefits will not be further increased. Some suggestions I've seen would include requiring people to work until age 70 before being able to claim full benefits.
4. That you will not become disabled after the age of 62 - it typically takes YEARS of fighting the system to be declared eligible for social security disability benefits.
5. That the govt. will not decrease benefits for all who have not yet started claiming SS. I have never seen retroactive reductions, because even the greediest of politicians know that would provoke a riot. Example, when, with the pathetic excuse for economic indicators used to calculate COLAs for social security recipients, there is a decreased/negative COLA, benefits are NEVER reduced.

So bottom line, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I was very fortunate that at age 62, I qualified for a state employee pension which included excellent health insurance coverage - full coverage until I qualified for Medicare at age 65, and a top-of-the-line supplemental coverage after I received Medicare. A number of my co-workers pointed out to me that if I worked another year, I'd also get eyeglass coverage; and another 2 years, dental coverage. I just didn't consider the price of a pair of eyeglasses or a couple of cleanings to be worth additional years of stress. When I took early retirement, a good friend at work (himself age 62) commented how much he and his wife were looking forward to his retirement at age 65, and all the activities/travel they had planned. He died at age 63.

I haven't covered all the details in this post - but if you're nearing age 62, you should educate yourself on all the ins and outs of claiming social security. Just be aware that each and every regulation is subject to change - and George Carlin was right - they ARE coming for your social security.

You can continue working after you start collecting social security - there are some penalties for the first couple of years, but at a certain point there are no penalties, and FICA reductions in your pay are added into the complex formula used to calculate your Soc. Sec. payments. For example, when I worked for the U.S. Census for two summers, my soc. sec. payment increased based on my post-retirement earnings.

Also, if you are divorced, or perhaps your Mom is divorced, know that if the marriage lasted 10 or more years, former spouses can opt to collect 1/2 their ex-spouse's SS payment instead of their own, & upon ex's death, can opt to collect ex's full payment instead of their own lesser amount. Of course, ex-husbands can choose to collect based on their ex-wives' SS payments, but the reality is that men earned much more than women. When my ex died, I switched to his benefits and my monthly SS payment increased by $1,100 per month!
I'm not including all the fine points here, but check out this aspect.

If you are divorced, your ex-spouse can receive benefits based on your record (even if you have remarried) if:
Your marriage lasted 10 years or longer;
Your ex-spouse is unmarried;
Your ex-spouse is age 62 or older;
The benefit that your ex-spouse is entitled to receive based on his or her own work is less than the benefit he or she would receive based on your work; and
You are entitled to Social Security retirement or disability benefits.
If you have not applied for retirement benefits, but can qualify for them, your ex-spouse can receive benefits on your record if you have been divorced for at least two years.
MORE DETAILS AT: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/index.html

[Warren Stupidity]

33. There are a bunch of inaccuracies in your post.

If you defer filing and become unemployed you file and start collecting. If you defer and become disabled you file and start collecting. The cap on earnings does not go away, ever. Once you cross the never adjusted circa 1985 income threshold, somewhere around 32k, your SS benefits are taxed.

At this point in time, with deferring increasing your benefits by around 7% per year, if you can afford to defer by working or by spending from savings (which are generally earning less than 2%) you should do so at least until full retirement. Of course you are right that the government could change these policies at any time. In the past such changes have only screwed future retirees, not those currently eligible, but there is that risk.

[Divernan]

34. The cap on earnings DOES go away when you reach full retirement age.

First, you are confusing the penalty/income cap on early retirees (which reduces their SS payments) with taxable income, including income from SS. I did not touch on the complex formula used to determine what if any portion of your SS benefits are taxed,. Your statement that over a certain threshold,SS income is taxed is overly broad and therefore inaccurate - because not more than 85% of your SS benefits can be taxed, as the law currently stands. "If income is between $25,000 and $34,000, up to 50 percent of your benefits may be subject to tax. For income of more than $34,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be considered taxable income." http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-2014/social-security-benefit-taxes.html

Further, you must be unfamiliar with the time it takes between filing for disability and actually being declared disabled to toss off the statement that "if you defer and become disabled you file and start collecting." It most often takes years and requires expert legal counsel to get officially recognized as disabled for purposes of collecting disability, and the standards are outrageous. This is not my area of law, but my brother is head of a law firm of 6 lawyers which handles only disability claims for plaintiffs, and he has explained to me the various levels of appeal they have to negotiate in most cases.

Second, the penalty is only applicable on early retirees until they reach their full retirement eligibility age. I wrote: "You can continue working after you start collecting social security - there are some penalties for the first couple of years, but at a certain point there are no penalties, and FICA reductions in your pay are added into the complex formula used to calculate your Soc. Sec. payments. For example, when I worked for the U.S. Census for two summers, my soc. sec. payment increased based on my post-retirement earnings."

Here it is spelled out by an expert:

Limits on Earned Income If Claiming Early Benefits

Until you reach full retirement age, Social Security will subtract money from your retirement check if you exceed a certain amount of earned income for the year. For the year 2015, this limit on earned income is $15,720 ($1,310 per month). The amount goes up each year. If you are collecting Social Security retirement benefits before full retirement age, your benefits are reduced by $1 for every $2 you earn over the limit. Once you reach full retirement age, there is no limit on the amount of money you may earn and still receive your full Social Security retirement benefit.

Example
Henry is considering claiming early retirement benefits this year, at age 64. Social Security calculates that if he does so, he’ll receive $866 a month (which is about 13% less than if he waited until his full retirement age of 66). But Henry also intends to continue working part-time, with an income that will be about $5,000 over the yearly limit on earned income. If he does claim the early benefits and makes that part-time income, Henry would lose one dollar out of two from the $5,000 he earns over the limit, which means $2,500 for the year, or $208 per month. Therefore, his $866 per month retirement benefit amount would be reduced to $658. So, by claiming early retirement and continuing to earn over the limit, Henry incurs a double penalty: His retirement benefits are permanently reduced by 13%, and he loses an additional amount every month (until he reaches full retirement age) to the extent he earns over the income limit.

Note that if you are working and you lose your job, you may collect unemployment benefits (assuming you otherwise qualify for them) even though you are also collecting your Social Security retirement benefits.
[b]Special Rule as You Approach Full Retirement Age
If you are already receiving your retirement benefits, a special higher earnings limit applies in the 12 months before you turn your full retirement age (66 for folks retiring today). If you will reach full retirement age in 2015, you may earn up to $3,490 per month without losing any of your benefits. But for every $3 you earn over that amount in any month, you will lose $1 in Social Security benefits. Beginning in the month you reach full retirement age, you become eligible to earn any amount without penalty.

The various possibilities I listed are not mutually exclusive. So you hit 62 and have a choice of starting to collect benefits or keep working and your full benefits kick in at age 67. You decide to keep working and NOT collect SS. At age 63, you lose your job and would like to start collecting SS, BUT the govt. has eliminated the early retirement option and at best you're forced to wait for 4 years, BUT, before you hit 67, the govt.could extend the retirement age to 70 - so that would be 7 years of trying to find employment - pretty near impossible at that age.

Basically, the whole point of my post was that if someone is elected president in 2016 who has not committed to saving SS at least in its present form, let alone lowering the retirement age or instituting a much fairer COLA, etc., then the hand-writing is pretty clear on the wall that there will be changes, or as one candidate loves to put it, "adjustments" and they will not favor retirees.

And I did state specifically: I have never seen retroactive reductions.

[JaneyVee]

14. She has a 100% rating on protecting Social Security.

[NorthCarolina]

18. Like Obama, I would guess her position on SS would run along the lines of

chained CPI, means testing, and the like. I'm quite sure she would not be amenable to raising the income cap as Sanders has suggested and as the majority of Americans are demanding, because if she was on board with that solution the no-brainer is that she would undoubtedly have already mentioned it. I personally have never heard that possible solution, raising the cap, cross her lips, so it's obvious that it is not on her radar.

[Sancho]

19. The answer to the "bash and trash" part of your thread is obvious...

"Will Hillary put our retirement funds
in the hands of greedy Wall st donors?

Will Hillary allow middle men to siphon off
profits at the expense of those most in need??? "

No, Hillary will not do that. Will she make expansion a top priority? That's not certain.

Social Security is a target of the GOP - especially Jeb - who want to privatize everything. None of the Democratic candidates will reduce or restrict the current system or even consider privatizing SS. There are some complex issues with regard to simply raising the top rate of contribution or increasing the benefits or changing the ages to obtain benefits or enlarging the pool of people eligible for benefits (outside of normal retirement). Anyone interested in a current review of SS may want to read: "Get What's Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security" by Laurence J. Kotlikoff and Philip Moeller - it's a good book with useful details. No matter what any candidate says, Congress will have to work to keep SS solvent and that might mean some tweaks from time to time and as President it might mean choices and compromises.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-dont-mess-social-security

Hillary Clinton: Don’t ‘mess’ with Social Security

“We’re back into the political season, and therefore we will be subjected to all kinds of distraction and attacks. And I’m ready for that,” she said.

And Clinton also took a moment to discuss the need to preserve Social Security. She chastised Republicans – though not by name – as “just wrong” for wanting to change the retirement program. “What do we do to make sure it is there? We don’t mess with it, and we do not pretend that it is a luxury – because it is not a luxury. It is a necessity for the majority of people who draw from Social Security,” she said.

------snip--------

“I think there will be some big political arguments about Social Security,” she continued. “And my only question to everybody who thinks we can privatize Social Security or undermine it in some way – and what is going to happen to all these people, like you, who worked 27 years at this other company? What’s going to happen? It’s just wrong.”

Many liberals, who have been urging Clinton to embrace an expansion of Social Security, will likely be pleased by the remarks.

Whitney Brothers owner David Stabler, who supported Barack Obama in 2008, said he appreciated Clinton coming to his “tiny” business and listening to employees in the intimate setting. He added that he thought Clinton was “warmer” more “human” than when he saw her during her last presidential run. “I thought she did a really good job,” he said.

-----------------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-oneill/two-million-voices-ring-o_b_7779694.html

Two Million Voices Ring Out for Social Security Expansion

Hillary Clinton gave a speech yesterday in which she called income inequality the defining economic issue of our time. I agree. Her commitment to raising wages and requiring the wealthiest to pay their fair share of taxes is key to reducing income and wealth inequality. And expanding our Social Security system is right in line with her principles.

----------------------

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/04/social_security_expansion_how_democrats_turned_around_on_an_essential_liberal.html

Social Security Is Having a Moment

The real test of Social Security’s resurgence as a liberal cause is Hillary Clinton.

It’s why, in 2012, the AFL-CIO called for Democrats to expand the program. “To compensate for the decline of traditional pensions and the loss of retirement savings,” wrote the organization, “Social Security retirement benefits must be increased across the board, which would be especially meaningful for low-income seniors.” The next year, the left-leaning New America Foundation released a broad plan for expanding Social Security by creating a new branch of the program—Part B—that would give a flat benefit to all retirees in addition to the existing Old Age and Survivors Insurance. (Disclosure: New America is a partner in Slate’s Future Tense.) And while this pitch was meant to solve a problem, it was also meant to challenge the prevailing view at the time that the entitlement should be cut. “At present the discussion is dominated by those who want to privatize or shrink Social Security and those on the defensive who propose merely incremental reforms to preserve it,” wrote the authors. “We seek not merely to move the ball, but also to move the goalpost in order to enlarge the boundaries of the national conversation about the future of retirement security in America.”

[Cosmic Kitten]

22. BOILERPLATE RETORT: bash and trash

She is not in favor or EXPANDING Social Security
nor raising taxes on her millionaire friends.

She will let her Wall St cronies
to skim profits and gut pensions.

No thanks.

[raouldukelives]

25. She reflects the desires of her base. Mostly shareholders I would assume.

For them, SS has always been the prize and they'll get it. Wall St nabobs always get what they pay for. Too bad all of us have to live in what they decide for us, but they never really genuinely care about anything but money anyway. Only at election time, and even then, only in a condescending tone to those of us too stupid to understand the joys of profits from third world sweatshops, military aggression, climate change and private prisons.

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. LOL ... Sighhh ... LOL ...

First, HRC didn't respond to a child's question on "what is the most important thing in life", by lecturing the child on the evils of the Keystone and TPP ... and now this?

“Explore ways to enhance” most definitely does not mean “expand,”

Well ...

enhance

[ enˈhans ]

VERB

intensify, increase, or further improve the quality, value, or extent of:

...

Expand | 1: to grow or increase in size, number, or amount <The airport is expanding.> 2: to open wide : unfold <The eagle's wings expanded.>

You are trying too damn hard ... and, IMO, looking foolish in the attempt.

[Armstead]

27. No....."enhance" and "protect" are both weasel words that mean nothing

Liberals and conservatives would agree on the statement: "We need an economy that allows all people to earn a good living and have opportunities to advance to their fullest potential."

But it's all those messy details that stem from that goal that actually make a difference.

She tends to avoid those messy details in her pronouncements on every issue, unless its is a "safe" policy proposal.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. I guess it all comes down to one's starting point ...

Just about every word in the English language could be a weasel word ... if one tries hard enough.

[azmom]

29. They could be, that is why BLM asked O'Malley

As the leader of this nation, will you advance a racial justice agenda that will dismantle, not reform, not make progress, but will begin to dismantle structural racism in the United States?"


Dismantle, not reform, not make Progress, but dismantle

We all need to be on the lookout for these words.

[Armstead]

30. In the case of Social Security there is a basic starting point

Whether it is privatized or not is one issue. It's safe for Democrats to huff and puff against GOP desires to privatize it in broad terms.

Expansion of benefits is an issue with more subtleties, and people can have good-faith differences about the practicality of tha tto allow people who rely on SS income to pay their bills.

But whether one talks about expansion or simple protection of the system, raising the outdated cap on top earnings is a basic step that should be part of the debate as a starting point. It is one key to preventing potential erosion of funding for SS and/or talking about expanding benefits. Also as an alternative to raising retirement age, cutting benefits, etc.

Even a slight raising the cap of taxable income would be helpful, and it would not harshly penalize top earners -- especially not the really big earners.

Taking an honest position on that would be a start to any candidate who wants to have credibility. If one is against that, they can explain why. But we deserve to know.

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. Agreed. And, I suspect that will come over time ...

Like during the debates, when platforms and policy agenda/priorities are given flesh.

Like it or not, the campaign trail is not where front runners get specific.

Besides, I sincerely doubt a majority of those demanding will/would believe HRC if she did come out with expansion goals.

[Armstead]

32. I hope so