Murphy: On Demise of Social Security, Don’t Believe The Hype
by Hugh McQuaid | Oct 26, 2012 12:07pm
(21) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Election 2012, Health Care, Pension
On a Friday conference call with roughly 3,300 Connecticut AARP members, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Chris Murphy tried to dispel some of the hand wringing over the solvency of the Social Security program.
Murphy, a three-term congressman, is in close race with Republican and former wrestling CEO Linda McMahon for retiring U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman’s seat.
Both faced similar questions from the some of the state’s senior citizens. McMahon participated in a conference call on Thursday morning. Neither town hall-style discussion revealed much the candidates hadn’t already stated regarding the solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
Murphy supports raising the cap on the payroll tax as a way to keep Social Security solvent. Currently the cap is at $110,100 a year, meaning anyone who makes more than that pays the same rate.
McMahon, on the other hand, has declined to specify what ideas she might consider, saying her ideas would be “demonized” before she ever got a chance to discuss them with other legislators. But raising the cap would be one of the things she would keep on the table.
But on Friday morning’s call, Murphy tried to downplay some of the fears that the program will soon go bankrupt, leaving four out of 10 seniors living in poverty.
“I think it’s important to step back and recognize the doomsday talk about Social Security’s immediate demise is overblown,” he said. “Social Security has 20 years before it starts taking in less money than it sends out.”
Murphy said that doesn’t mean the problem shouldn’t be addressed immediately. Every year that passes without efforts to shore up the program will make it harder to keep solvent in the future.
He reiterated his call for raising the payroll cap.
“It doesn’t make sense that somebody that’s making $20 million a year is paying is paying a astronomically lower percentage of their income for Social Security taxes than somebody making $50,000 a year and that’s the way you can solve the program,” he said.
Seniors should also receive “reasonable” annual adjustments in their benefits, Murphy said. Social Security adjustments over the last several years haven’t reflected the reality that the cost of living for seniors has been rising, he said.
As for Medicare, Murphy said he rejected Republican vice presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to create a voucher system. Ryan’s plan wouldn’t go into effect until the day people who are currently 55 enter Medicare.
Murphy said McMahon has stated she would be willing to consider a more aggressive version of the privatization plan, which could impact seniors going on Medicare as soon as next year.
During her Thursday call, McMahon said she wouldn’t consider privatization plans because she didn’t think “that’s the way we should go.”
A Quinnipiac University poll released this week showed 52 percent of voters believe Murphy will do a better job on Social Security and Medicare, while 39 percent felt McMahon would do a better job on those two issues. However, the same poll found that 48 percent of voters believe McMahon has better ideas about creating jobs, while 38 percent of voters believe Murphy has better ideas.
During the call Murphy urged seniors to research the policies of the two candidates, saying it’s impossible to get to know someone through 30-second TV spots. It was clear some of the callers on the line were sick of those ads.
Cheryl from Hamden said she’s never met either candidate and has been trying to rely on the press to enable her to cast an informed vote.
“I have truly grown weary of the negative and bad-mouthing television advertisements to the point of not listening anymore. Listening to those would not lead me to vote for either of you. I just want them to stop,” she said.
Murphy told her if she watches TV tonight she would see two fairly positive ads from his campaign.
Connect with Hugh:
Tags: U.S. Senate 2012, chris murphy, Linda McMAhon, AARP
(21) Comments
posted by: 17beachboy | October 26, 2012 1:44pm
Seems like Murphy has all the answers to fix Social Security. Seems like he has all the answers to all of the issues in this campaign.
I wounder why he did not propose these solutions while he has been our Congressman these last five years?
Maybe he was waiting to be our Senator?
posted by: Noteworthy | October 26, 2012 1:55pm
Chris Murphy’s understanding of social security payments from income of workers is so juvenile - he should not even be allowed to be on a conference call with seniors who have questions about social security.
The maximum amount of income that can be taxed for social security is $110,000. There is no social security tax after that. Murphy talks about somebody earning $20 million and percent of income that goes to SS tax. That’s just a flagrantly stupid comparison.
On the other hand, Murphy says there is no rush but admits the problem grows more difficult the longer it is put off. And his one suggestion is to raise the cap which is to raise the cap on middle income families. That’s always a solution isn’t it Murphy? Go after our family budgets. How far are you suggesting the cap go Murph in order to pay full COLA adjustments?
And of course, Murphy says he’s against Ryan’s plan on medicare, but nobody asks what’s Murphy’s plan? What has he proposed? Anything? No plan? No substance? Oh, ok. Medicare consumes more and more of the federal budget every year. At some point the entitlements will eat up almost 80% of the budget. What’s Murphy’s plan?
posted by: Not that Michael Brown | October 26, 2012 4:11pm
Murphy is right. ‘Raising the cap’ is the best solution. All other ideas are designed by the Peterson Institute to destroy Social Security (SS). ‘Means testing’ will turn SS from ‘insurance’ into a tax, which will allow it to be demonized (more) by the right. Raising the ‘age of eligibility’ is just plain cruel. People working in manual labor jobs should not be forced to work to age 70. Changing the ‘COLA calculation’ is a gimmick that will be used as a cudgel against any politician who voted for it. And then there’s ‘privatizing’ . . .
Raise the cap and Social Security will be solvent for another 100 years.
posted by: CitizenCT | October 26, 2012 4:49pm
Murphy doesn’t have a clue. He says ““Social Security has 20 years before it starts taking in less money than it sends out”. Wrong Chris. The taxes coming in right now don’t cover the benefits paid out. In 20 years the imaginary fund will be dry. He says, “It doesn’t make sense that somebody that’s making $20 million a year is paying is paying a astronomically lower percentage of their income for Social Security taxes than somebody making $50,000 a year”. Actually Chris it makes perfect sense. Social Security was never meant to be a redistribution program. The more you put in up to a max, the more you get back in retirement years. I guess it makes sense that someone who can’t manage his personal check book has no idea how social security works.
posted by: Noteworthy | October 26, 2012 5:35pm
I just listened to a half hour discussion on CNBC as it relates to the fiscal cliff which is less than 3 months away. I suppose Murphy doesn’t think that’s a big deal either - does he have a solution to that?
posted by: Not that Michael Brown | October 26, 2012 6:02pm
@CTCitizen
Get you facts straight. The Social Security Administration currently takes in more than it pays out. The SSA buys Treasury Bills with the excess. The deficit in the SS fund is projected to occur in 20 years, just as Murphy said.
posted by: CitizenCT | October 28, 2012 10:10am
Michael Brown, what you say is not true, get your facts straight. Social security taxes are now less than what’s paid out. From the Social Security Trustees report, “Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983”. Too bad Murphy doesn’t understand either.
posted by: stellablu122 | October 28, 2012 7:51pm
Its good to see the McMahon campaign trolling here. The reason why SS paid out more than it took in in 2010-2011 is due to the recession and that wages are flat. Not the responsibility of Congress on those two points guys.
As for you @noteworthy as our population ages it is correct SS and Medicaid expenses will expand but not to 80 of the federal budget. They are under 25% right now.
Here is the link that you referenced.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43648
If some of you right wingers would re-evaluate your stance on legal immigration a immediate positive would be the fact that payroll taxes would increase greatly in this country.
If you also supported a living wage for workers payroll, SS, and Medicare taxes would increase.
Linda McMahon clearly believes in trickle down economics and sadly that will not solve the responsibility we owe to Americans in or who will be retirement or in balancing our budget and reducing the deficit.
The solution is growing the middle class. Once again McMahon’s definition of a middle class family is one making $143,000 a year. maybe that is “middle class” in Fairfield county but the median income in our state wass under $66,000 in 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income
Thus her proposed tax breaks would not help the majority of working families in our state.
I believe Murphy will be more pragmatic and less partisan than McMahon would be in the Senate and that is what Connecticut and our country needs more of.
posted by: CitizenCT | October 29, 2012 7:22am
Stella, you say, legalizing immigration would have a positive impact on payroll taxes. How? What jobs would be created by this action that the existing unemployed couldn’t fill? You say supporting a “living wage” would increase payroll taxes. Wrong, it would end up shipping more jobs overseas and increasing unemployment. Walmart is the largest retailer not because of its American made selection, because of its low prices. Your most funny comment is Chris, I vote with Nancy Pelosi 97% of the time, Murphy would be less partisan than Linda. Trickle down government doesn’t work. Tax and spend Murphy isn’t part of the solution. If the Gvt gets out of the way, the economy can rebound.
posted by: SalRomano | October 29, 2012 12:17pm
Murphy will tell you ANYTHING YOU WANT TO HEAR—to get a vote! He is not a performer—only a political actor—like his idol—Barack Hussein Obama. Shame on you, if you vote for this Obama puppet. Obama is destroying America—and Christopher Murphy is his willing agent. We need Mitt Romney and Linda McMahon is these “dark days of America.”
posted by: gutbomb86 | October 29, 2012 12:44pm
Ah Sal, still at it. No matter how many times you post about your fear of a black president, the facts will remain:
The sky didn’t fall while Obama was in office. It fell in before that, and Obama is helping to pick up the pieces. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t support a president who failed miserably - historically so, in fact - and then claim it’s the next president’s fault. That doesn’t fly here, sir. You know better. Worse yet, you complain about the current president and ignore the obstructionist nature of your own cabal/party. It’s nonsense. Everyone knows it.
posted by: ALD | October 29, 2012 3:40pm
I think it’s fair to say the sky didn’t fall while Obama has been in office, but for some of us it seems it simply has continued to not stop falling.
I sort of view this as two DRs working on a sick patient trying to clean out a cholesterol filled carotid artery. The first DR botches the operation and leaves the patient bleeding to death. The second DR steps in saying he will fix what the first DR screwed up. He puts a tourniquet around the patient’s neck, and tightens it until the flow of blood stops. Then he tells us the patient is on the road to recovery.
If I were that patient I’d hope someone would be smart enough to find me a new DR quickly before I was strangled to death.
The same goes for Chris Murphy how can anyone take seriously someone who has been in office now for six years and been no part of any solution to any of the problems he talks about? As you say. You can’t have it both ways!! Time for a new DR.
posted by: SalRomano | October 29, 2012 4:03pm
gutbamb86: There you go! “You had to throw in the race card, describing Obama as a Black President”—when in fact, his mother was a Caucasian. Only Willard Mitt Romney’s clean and fully disclosed background—experience and trustworhiness—show him to be a great leader and an excellent citizen for President of the United States. He was never a Community Organizer, never took drugs or smoked pot. Never got drunk. Did not associate with communists and terrorists, nor did he attend a church whose pastor called for God to damn the United States of America. You defend Obama for outspending all of the combined President’s in U. S, history—by being programmed by the Democratic National Committee to do so—“and still blaming Bush.” Sadly, Obama never created a job in is life, however Romney, through starting Bain Capital with one small office supply store in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney turned it into Staples, with now over 2000 stores—employing 90.000 people. Bain Capital continued with business miracles like Dominos, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply and many others. In 2002 Romney was elected to Governor of Massachusetts, where he worked with heavy majority Democrats to eliminate a $1.5 billion dollar deficit. In 2011 Romney gave over $4 million dollars to charity, almost 19% of his income, in comparison to Obama giving just one percent, and Joe Biden Giving a meager $300, or, .0013%. Unlike Obama does not cover up his college education records—with a BA from Bigham Young University J.D, and MBA degrees from Harvard Business School, and Harvard Law School simultaneously. He passed the Michigan Bar Exam, but never worked as an Attorney. In religion, he has been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, serving as a Pastor, and spent 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary. However, Obama’s religious background matches rhe other pieces of his unknown past history. A civil service janitor working in the White House
had to undergo as more detailed and comprehensive background check than that was required of Barack Hussen Obama—using a Connecticut Social Security number to add to this comedy of flaunting Obama’s sketchy identity.
posted by: gutbomb86 | October 29, 2012 4:50pm
Sorry, Sal, that’s not going to cut it. You’ve done everything you can to smear the guy with nonsense and untruths and still are doing so through this comment thread. You exposed yourself on race a long time ago here and we all see it. The Republican Party is loaded with bigots who just could not live with the thought of Obama as president, and you’ve all exposed yourself as such over the last 5 years. The party of “no” came to be the moment they saw the guy’s name in print and saw the color of his skin.
Now you’re blathering about numbers that aren’t real and scandals that you’ve made up. Give it up. We’re tired of it. Making up nonsense in website comment threads isn’t going to elect the flip-flopper Mitt Romney, because he’s very fake and transparent and we all see that.
posted by: gutbomb86 | October 29, 2012 4:55pm
ALD, your statement:
He puts a tourniquet around the patient’s neck, and tightens it until the flow of blood stops.
...is a lie. It’s a completely inaccurate image through which you’re trying to smear the success of the Obama administration. It’s ridiculous. You’re misinformed and/or purposefully ignoring progress for partisanship.
posted by: ALD | October 29, 2012 7:53pm
gutbomb, I guess we view success differently!!!!!!!! I was under the impression success should have something to do with solutions that don’t create bigger,more complex long term problems. Clearly one of us is “misinformed”.
I’m not sure why you place any value in “progress for partisanship” I was hoping for the promised progress for bipartisanship. But all I have seen the last four years is more and more of what this country can no longer afford. Partisan party politics. I do not blame only our President for that. I also blame every member of Congress from both parties who votes the party line 90% or more of the time.
So next Tuesday I’ll be voting to hopefully take some positive steps in a different direction. My vote for President in CT is largely symbolic, since the electoral college in this bluest of blue states makes my vote here for President irrelevant. Also since there are no CT Republicans who represent me in Washington, I can only voice my displeasure with the partisan bickering that has become intolerable, by voting against the partisan Democratic CT puppets currently in office.
Lastly, I firmly believe we will never solve our problems by rewarding those who have a record of failure in Congress with re election to office, or promotion to another office. I’d rather vote for no experience, than vote for failed experience.
You can put any label you like on my logic, misinformed, simplistic, idealistic, or otherwise, but it’s my logic, and I approve that message
posted by: SalRomano | October 29, 2012 9:07pm
gutbomb86: The reason that you approve of Obama’s “covering his tracks” is that exposure of his hidden past—will reveal that Barack Hussein Obama IS NOT A U. S. CITIZEN—and illegally occupyung the White House. Therefore, as a foreign alien—it is understandable why he has been burying this country into massive budget deficits, outspending all Presidents in our history. Obama is burying us—until he is exposed as a fraud, under the control of his billionaire masters.
posted by: gutbomb86 | October 30, 2012 2:52pm
@ALD - that’s still a miss. You’ve got ostrich syndrome. You don’t like the progress Obama’s made so you won’t acknowledge it. That’s unfortunately your problem, not mine.
@salromano - I found a page that essentially disproves everything you’ve ever said on this site. Enjoy.
posted by: ALD | October 30, 2012 4:44pm
Hey Gutbomb, Your 100% correct, I don’t like the progress Obama has made. Nor do I like the progress Congress has made. Any progress they have produced IMO has come at far too great a cost to the future of our country.
So as a result, now you say I have gone from being “misinformed” to having “Ostrich syndrome”? Cool dude! I guess that explains why I apparently define both “success” and “progress” differently then you do. It also explains why I’ll probably vote differently then you will as well.
In my apparently “misinformed”, and “Ostrich syndrome” ways, I foolishly believe that we voters who elect those we send to Washington and Hartford, have a responsibility to hold them accountable for the job they do for us all once they get there. Not how well they towed the party line for my party. That means in my foolish world, I measure the sum total of their results, both good and bad. Not just the portion of their results I like.
If in sum total I like the results an incumbent has produced, I will vote to return that person to office. If in sum total I don’t like the results the incumbent has produced, I will vote for the challenger, if that choice appears to have any chance to produce better results.
It’s not hard to understand, just maybe a bit too logical for you. Hmmmm, maybe that now makes me a Vulcan??
posted by: Reasonable | October 30, 2012 8:45pm
gutbomb86: Don’t get carried away. Factcheck is a division of Annenberg Public Policy Center—“a liberal bias think-tank for the benefit of Barack Obama—with a billionaire George Soros—who controls a significant portion of of the the liberal press—and a key link to getting Obama elected four years ago, and wortrying hard to do it again.
Soros is said to be a king-pin who controls Obama also.