iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

GOP Senator Proposes Increasing Social Security Retirement Age 'Every Several Years'

First Posted: 02/08/11 01:13 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:30 PM ET

Richard Shelby Social Security

A week after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared that cutting Social Security is off the table, a leading Republican senator proposed increasing the Social Security retirement age "every several years."

Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the banking committee and a senior member of the appropriations committee, told a breakfast gathering held by the Institute for Education on Tuesday to expect a fight -- rather than bipartisan agreement -- over the budget.

Shelby said he considers deficit reduction to be the top issue on the congressional agenda.

"We're on the road to financial destruction," he warned. "Can we get our hand around this problem without bringing everything to the table? No."

And Shelby indicated that entitlements are very much on his budget-cutting agenda. He mocked the recommendation of President Barack Obama's deficit commission, which he said would raise the Social Security retirement age in 2025 (actually, not until 2027).

"America will be burned by then -- and a lot of us will be dead," he said.

His preferred solution is to "up the age every several years," he said -- the net effect of which would be tantamount to one benefit cut after another.

The senator said that anyone who had mastered "sixth-grade math" knows that Social Security is actuarially unsound. But his calls for alarm about the system are simply not supported by the facts.

Shelby, 76, said of the next generation of workers: "They're not going to receive anything or if they do, very little." Citing his sons -- who he said "want their money now" -- he asserted: "There's no proof that they will get much, if anything."

In reality, however, current projections are that, unlike other budget categories that are unsustainable in the short run, Social Security will experience only a modest shortfall over the next 75 years.

The Social Security trust fund will last at least through 2037, at which point, with no Congressional action, the program could still pay out 78 percent of expected benefits going forward.

In August, when the latest projections were announced, Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue lashed out at those who exaggerate the significance of the trust fund running out -- in 26 years.

"That does not mean that there will be no money left," Astrue said. And saying otherwise simply makes young people despair unnecessarily.

Shelby -- who was a Democrat until 1994 -- is now one of the Senate's most reliable conservative votes. At Tuesday's breakfast, he spoke approvingly of the Tea Party movement. "Where do they come from?" he asked. "Fear -- a lot of it -- fear of the future."

Cutting the budget will be a challenge, he said. "People are going to have to say, 'Well, we're going to have to put the nation first'" -- above party and pet programs. "That's easy to say," but "tough to implement," he acknowledged.

For instance, Shelby said there is potential for "massive cutting" in the defense budget -- but probably not the political will.

One area where he might find bipartisan agreement is in his opposition to corporate subsidies. "I believe there are too many subsidies in our tax code," he said, adding that neither ExxonMobil nor any other company needs a tax incentive to drill for oil. Obama said the same thing in his State of the Union address.

But Shelby's thoughts about reforming the tax code are unlikely to find support across the aisle.

He spoke disapprovingly of the fact that the richest 5 percent of Americans pay, he said, 55 percent of taxes (actually, it's about 59 percent.) That's the result of an income-tax system that is not nearly as progressive as it used to be, or as the public wants.

But Shelby thinks the rich are paying too much -- not too little.

Shelby also spoke briefly about the anti-government protests in Egypt. His concern was not about the protesters, however, but about what they might accomplish. He warned that the outcome might be a democracy, "just not the kind we would like."

If what emerges is a democratically elected government dominated by Islamic fundamentalists, he said, "the contagion would go right through the area."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
A week after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared that cutting Social Security is off the table, a leading Republican senator proposed increasing the Social Security retirement age "eve...
A week after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared that cutting Social Security is off the table, a leading Republican senator proposed increasing the Social Security retirement age "eve...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,865
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (74 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marijam
Independent
07:32 AM on 02/15/2011
A few points.
1. Reagan increased taxes. He especially increased taxes on the middle class and the working poor.
2. Reagan had a stimulus program that put people to work building low-income housing.
3. Take the cap off of earnings and we won't have a social security problem.
4. Yeah, give me every single penny NOW that I ever paid into social security and I'll consider letting you privatize it going forward. What's that you say? You say you can't do that because it would cost too much?
5. It's easy for them to suggest budget cuts that they know would never get off the ground for either a Republican or a Democratic administration.
6. Anybody making over $100,000 is in the "top 5% bracket". Take it down to the top 1% and you will find that each tranche is paying about the same tax rate. That's not just and it's not fair. Fair isn't treating everybody the same when a poor person's every dollar has to go to survival and when it's the top 1% it means the difference in whether or not they buy that $5,000 shower curtain or not.
11:00 PM on 02/11/2011
Fact: Social Security dollars that are not paid out immediately are invested in government bonds. But those bonds are loans people make to the government on which interest is paid. The only way for the government to get cash to pay Social Security dollars out of that fund is to use current taxes to pay back the loans. Thus those Social Security dollars invested in government bonds are loans taken out in the past and present that will have to be paid by tax payers in the future: mainly those under 40.
photo
thereisonlyoneparty
more amazing than you
04:02 PM on 02/14/2011
undefined
10:57 PM on 02/11/2011
Fact: Social Security will pay out more than it takes in next year, in 2012.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marijam
Independent
07:34 AM on 02/15/2011
Put people back to work then. Where are the jobs?
hopeisalive
Old enough to know better, but young enough to try
11:42 AM on 02/11/2011
Mr. Shelby says that Social Security is going under, yet an independent group says that Social Security is on stable footing with a modest decrease the next 75 years. With no action by Congress, Social Security is sound til 2037---26 years from now. Who is correct? I'm going to side against Mr. Shelby only because he wasn't to correct on several other things as stated in this article as well as other "Googles" I've made in the past. My biggest question to him and other legislators, both Democratic and Republican, is why don't you state things as they are and not just cherry pick and stretch the truth?
photo
thereisonlyoneparty
more amazing than you
04:05 PM on 02/14/2011
Social security is only solvent as long as the federal government continues to pay back the loans it holds plus interest.

Social security has no money.  It has treasury notes.  The federal government "borrowed" the excess revenue and spent it.  SS got a promissory note that says it will get the money back plus a little interest.

Now the government was a running a deficit even while it was taking in these loans, so how exactly is it going to be able to repay them?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marijam
Independent
07:44 AM on 02/15/2011
We have never defaulted on a debt. If we did default on a debt, what do you suppose would happen?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jefferson Vickers
10:08 AM on 02/10/2011
I propose the Senator write me a check fir the 63,000 I will loose out on. Prior to that though I Propse he learn math. Surplus means + money if you stop raiding it - would mean all will be fine. =
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:45 PM on 02/10/2011
Right now social security takes more money from minorities than it does from white women. This will only make it worse. A good reason to end social security would be to help lift minorities out of poverty.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jefferson Vickers
09:10 PM on 02/10/2011
And I mean ABSOLUTELY no respect but those are the the people who don't have fancy financial planners and all the army of people to loose their money for them. Basically I think all of this is MOOT. We have loaned the government our money FORCEFULLY but for most of our own good. If they tried to keep that money you would see an uprising that would make Egypt look like a TeaBag event. The MUST pay us that money, or they will be litigated right out of business. People Start deducting what government owes us in their taxes, they CAN NOT audit, jail, catch everyone if this was done as a protest. This is all lip service to the rights ziplocks and the white rich machine. not gonna happen-
hopeisalive
Old enough to know better, but young enough to try
11:47 AM on 02/11/2011
Have you any proof of what you said? I'd also suggest that you visit your grandparents, if you can, and see what they think about Social Security. There are a great number of older Americans who's only income is that Social Security check. Are you going to let them become destitute? I find your thought that stopping Social Security is going "to help lift minorities out of poverty" to be a very inane comment at best.
photo
thereisonlyoneparty
more amazing than you
04:06 PM on 02/14/2011
What money that you will "loose (sic) out on"?

You are not owed anything.  That is how taxes work.  Social security is a tax.  It is not an investment account.  You are owed nothing so it is impossible for you to lose out on anything.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marijam
Independent
07:37 AM on 02/15/2011
That's not true. Everybody pays in, everybody gets payment out. It's an insurance account in that respect.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:42 PM on 02/09/2011
Social security should allow people to opt out if they want to. Imagine paying 12% in the plan from the day you first start work until you're 67, for 50 years only to get an average of $1200 per month back. Government bonds are safer and give a better return. Social security is a total rip.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jefferson Vickers
10:10 AM on 02/10/2011
yah and after the last stock crash can you imagine all the welfare seniors too? O wait that's what we used to do.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:29 AM on 02/10/2011
Right because stocks are the only other way to invest your money and you should always have all your money in just one stock.

You should keep your money in social security and lottery tickets. Let the adults take care of themselves.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marijam
Independent
07:44 AM on 02/15/2011
Social security is there NO MATTER WHAT. You canot with a straight face say that about any investment. Period.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Martha Fair
Professional RepubliBilly Factchecker
07:03 PM on 02/09/2011
Well if this RepubliBilly has obtained his sixth grade education in Alabama, or most any other state in the south, I can guarantee you that he hasn't yet mastered sixth grade math or even first grade math for that matter.
06:33 PM on 02/09/2011
The GOPtbags are strangely silent on this issue.....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DinNM
I'm 57 and I do as I damn well please!
03:20 PM on 02/09/2011
Isn't it interesting that these a**holes in the congress and senate have NO QUALMS about cutting the so-called "entitlement programs" for US, THE FOLKS WHO ELECTED THEM (I mean BOTH parties), but they get to RETIRE AFTER ONLY TWO YEARS and both them AND ALL OF THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS get FULL HEALTH CARE FUNDED BY US as well as BEING ABLE TO COLLECT SOCIAL SECURITY!!!!!!!!!

Hey, Egyptians, good luck, 'cause I think WE'RE NEXT!!!!!!! VIVA LA REVOLUCION!!!!!!!!!!
03:58 PM on 02/09/2011
they collect a unfunded gov. pension. 190000 a yr. plus health ins. payed for by?


We the tax payer all there live,, they do not pay into s.s. or they would not attack s.s. they would need it...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jefferson Vickers
02:55 PM on 02/09/2011
Why do they use entitlement in the argument it is a negative misleading elementary mistake. This is in effect the repayment of a loan we were forced to give the government. Until that fact is driven home ignorant people will continue to view this as a handout.
03:59 PM on 02/09/2011
well done.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jefferson Vickers
04:12 PM on 02/09/2011
Thank you :-)
photo
lisaman
I am a liberal American so get over it
10:04 AM on 02/10/2011
Right, a mandate by the government.
02:48 PM on 02/09/2011
Why is it that these folks never make reference to the amount payroll taxes contribute to federal tax revenue. They always show charts that refer only to federal income tax and never include payroll taxes. Since payroll taxes are paid primarly by middle and lower income folks who also pay federal income taxes, the myth is perpetuated that the rich pay most of the federal taxes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marijam
Independent
07:41 AM on 02/15/2011
Yes, the poor pay in those payroll taxes then the government borrows them to pay for everything else, then the government tells them that social security isn't going to be there for them. What is wrong with this picture?
photo
lisaman
I am a liberal American so get over it
02:46 PM on 02/09/2011
Fianlly, an admittance. The tea party was built on fear. Like, duuuuuuuuuuuh.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
OneFish
Various and assorted mutualistic microbial buddies
03:19 PM on 02/09/2011
The pain is real and the grassroots outrage in this country is justified. The problem is that wealthy and powerful interests have redirected that anger away from the actual problems. Koch brothers e.g. Quite a brilliant coup, actually.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Martha Fair
Professional RepubliBilly Factchecker
07:08 PM on 02/09/2011
Not that brilliant really....when you consider the education obtained by most of the red southern states where most of the RepubliBillys reside. This is where they can count on being voted in just like Colonel Sanders can be counted on to be re-elected by his chickens.
photo
lisaman
I am a liberal American so get over it
10:02 AM on 02/10/2011
I think the fear we are talking about is different. The fear they have is of illegal immigrants killing them, of government officials deciding they must die rather than receive health care, they fear the black muslim from Kenya, they fear babies who might someday kill them, they fear the loss of their guns, everything is fear and everything is IRRATIONAL!

If this whole tea party was started because of the fear of the rising debt, why did it take a black man to become President before it happened? If this was only about grass roots issues, then why call him a nazi and a socialist and a communist? We were still living under the Bush budget which conveniently left out the two wars started under his watch when the accusations began.

I guess my biggest problem with the "grass roots" tea party movement is that they have waaaaaay too many crazy people in the folds. Ever watch the videos done by those college guys from New Left Media? You should watch sometime, I know everyone involved isn't as crazy as those people but too many of them for my tastes. I have even heard some of the leaders talk birth certificate.

As long as they allow themselves to be led around by Fox News, they will never attain any respect from me or anyone else who actually cares about the truth!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linda from Pahrump
Moderation in ALL things
02:17 PM on 02/09/2011
The ONLY solution to the SS dilema, is to remove the cap, and stop raiding it. Seniors have worked long and hard all their lives, and contributed into the system, with the expectation that when they reached an age where the body begins to say "no", they would not have to be a burden on anyone. There is nothing wrong, or sinister, in this. No one wants to be a burden on their families.

The Republicans have, and constantly do, betray that trust. And they have hoodwinked their worshipers into believing that this is the way it should be.
photo
thereisonlyoneparty
more amazing than you
04:13 PM on 02/14/2011
That is too bad.

It is not about being fair or people getting what they "deserve."  Did a generation of people deserve to pay less into social security while reaping the same benefits?  Do future generations deserve to pay into the program that will be completely overhauled or non-existent by the time they reach retirement age?

Taxes suck.  Paying taxes does not give anyone claim to anything nor does it put them in a position where society owes them something.

You showed exactly why Americans are hated abroad (and domestically by the few intelligent people in the country) through your post.  It is always about "me! Me! Me!"  "What do I get for paying my taxes?"  "What am I owed?"

The system is a failure and it does not make sense to propagate it because people had to pay the tax.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marijam
Independent
07:42 AM on 02/15/2011
75% of current benefits will be paid out in 2037 if nothing changes. I wouldn't call that "nothing" or "non-existent".
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:15 PM on 02/09/2011
If they keep raising the retirement age AND keep eliminating access for working people to decent healthcare, there won't be a problem as most of the working people will be dead and gone before they can ever get to retirement. Now that is a conservative problem solver!