Rhode Island’s Democrats and Social Security

A February 3 Projo article has the essentials of the positions of the Rhode Island Congressional delegation with respect to Social Security reform.

To sum up: James Langevin says that the government needs to take more from people and give them less. Jack Reed says that the government needs to take more from people and give them the same or less. Patrick Kennedy says that the government needs to take more from people and give them the same.

All three want to raise taxes. The euphemism they use is “reductions in permanent tax cuts” (Jack Reed) or “repealing all of the Bush tax cuts” (Patrick Kennedy). The article says Langevin agrees with Kennedy that “Social Security payroll tax increases should be off the table”. Focusing narrowly on the social security payroll tax presumably implies that Langevin would not oppose raising other types of taxes, i.e. repealing other tax cuts.

Kennedy opposes generally slowing the rate of benefit increases (generally slowing benefits is favored by Senator Lincoln Chafee, among others). The article contradicts itself on Reed’s position on benefit cuts. Here’s the direct quote…

I'd like to avoid any cuts," particularly in the form of shifts in how benefits are calculated, Reed said.But he said he would be open to debate on a wide variety of possible cuts and tax hikes

Does Senator Reed want to avoid cuts, or is he open to debate about cuts? Again, Langevin is disappointingly vague here. He says “he would rule out reduced benefits for the wealthy and a higher retirement age.” This does not rule out reduced benefits in the form of slowing cost-of-living benefits, the benefit cut that would have the greatest impact on the youngest taxpayers.

Isn’t there something fundamentally wrong with a system that needs to take more and more from people in order to give them less and less?