Speaking to WVOC radio in his home state, Graham said “I’m looking for a process that will lead to a vote on saving Social Security from bankruptcy this year, that would adjust the age.”
Senator Graham made reference to the gradual increase in the retirement age in the 80s that was a product of an agreement with then President Ronald Reagan, a Republican and Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill (Mass.). That agreement brought in a phased increase in the retirement age to 67, the Hill report said.
“We could use the same type system,” Graham said. “Ronald Reagan went from 65 to 67 with Tipp O’Neill … we could use that same… to go from 67 to 69, for people under 55.”
Observers say the senator’s proposal maybe the boldest measure to address Social Security that is coming from a Republican.
Earlier, Republican House Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) admitted he was mistaken to suggest last year that it was necessary to raise the retirement age. Last June, Boehner said that eventually the retirement age would have to be raised from 65 to 70. Those comments stirred many reactions.
In an interview with CNN, Boehner said, “I made a mistake when I did that, because I think having the conversation about how big the problem is is the first step.” The Speaker said Americans should first “understand how big the problem is, then you can begin to outline an array of possible solutions.”
Graham had hinted his proposal in early January, but he was not specific about it. His remarks prompted the liberal group Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) to initiate a television campaign against him over the idea.
Some Democrats are against any major change to Social Security. Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader said proposals for major changes to the system, including the idea of privatizing Social Security, were “off the table.”
Meanwhile, Senator Graham also suggested that the program should be adjusted so that richer individuals will get slightly less in Social Security payments.
© 2010 Micmn.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
The Newly Elected U.S.A. Republican Party Congress
I listened recently to a top Republican Party member congressman, named Mr. Graham, of SC. He was speaking, on a nationally broadcasted television program.
He talked about the current U.S.A. economy. He said several times that he, and his Republican Party, will move to reduce government spending.
That is a sound idea! However, Mr. Graham and his “tea party”, as he likes to call it, are not mentioning spending reductions in the form of curbing blatant special interest group over spending. Or eliminating their personal “expense accounts” which amount to tens of millions of dollars annually. And that is in addition to the over the top enormous salaries they vote for themselves. Thy even receive gasoline at no cost to themselves! They also vote for themselves to receive over the top special medical insurance; the premiums of which do not come from their lucrative salaries! They also vote for themselves to receive over the top, extremely lucrative PENSION PLANS! They made them guaranteed entitlements!
There are hundreds of thousands of public servants in the U.S.A. who owe their jobs, and lucrative salaries, to nepotism and favoritism among government employees! Let us reduce government spending by seriously reducing that!
To add insult to injury, these same public servants have created unions for themselves, that make it virtually impossible to fire them or even dismiss them from these lucrative jobs. Many of these positions are created, not out of necessity, but merely to accommodate the blatant nepotism and favoritism spending in the government!
But Mr. Graham did say unabashedly that he, and his “tea party”, wants to reduce Social Security Benefits entitlements (incidentally, he and his fellows are not part of the Social Security Plan; they have made certain of that)! Mr. Graham did also say unabashedly that he wants to reduce Medicare Benefits! You may have surmised, correctly, that Mr. Graham and his fellows are not part of the Medicare Plan either!
I move that U.S. Citizens, fire (can we do that?) Mr. Graham; and any governmental official who acts toward Social Security or Medicare Benefits that will not increase them!
Date: January 06, 2011
AUTHOR: James Madison, IV
Again, another ridiculous idea. I understand that we are living longer, making it seem reasonable to raise the retirement age. But reality is that anyone in their 50′s+ is not able to get (or often keep) a job. Raising the retirement age is going to leave larger numbers of people out here without a source of income in their senior years. I know, plan for retirement, don’t depend on social security. Well, for those of us who had done that, or tried to do that, we have had to use anything we had saved to live long before we ever thought about officially “retiring.” Many of us seem to have become forcibly retired because we have been unable to secure jobs of any sort, life-sustaining or not.
They make it seem like this is the only alternative, but it is not. They could raise the cap, or totally remove the cap, so that people would be paying into social security beyond the $$ value they have heretofore assessed. But, of course, they don’t want to do that because who it affects is the well-to-do or wealthy–and the GOP is set against doing anything that will raise the ire of their base. What a bunch of horse****. More crap from a Gov’t which seems hell bent on starving the elderly, the poor, the disenfranchised, while looking out for their wealthy cohorts.
Sharon-GA – Amen – you are ‘preaching to the choir’!! Why do they waste their breath and our time?? JUST RAISE THE CAP is the most reasonable option.
So many things have changed in midcourse for 50 – 60 year olds?? Yes, some can and want to continue their employment or can change, downsize, their careers but we have lots of heavy duty jobs that over time will not allow even the most hearty of individuals to continue. The percentage of the population that healthwise will be able to even continue working after 65 is maybe 20 – 25% and the PRESENT full social security is 67!! Give us a break! lol
I hate to believe it but agree that our parents generation probably had a better retirement than mine will between no fixed pensions and the whole 401 k mess… So many problems for the middle class have been left so unattended to the extreme!! Peace, not yet??
Your Entitlement Benefits at age 69? Why stop there? Let Capitol Hill quit beating around the proverbial bush and make 119 years of age. Yet another irritating problem solved. Those in favor just nod inconspicuously.