S. 426 would amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide for progressive indexing and longevity indexing of Social Security old-age insurance benefits for newly retired and aged surviving spouses to ensure the future solvency of the Social Security program.
Detailed Summary
Social Security Solvency Act of 2009 - Amends title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) (OASDI) of the Social Security Act to provide for progressive indexing of old age insurance benefits with respect to any individual who initially becomes eligible for them or who dies (before becoming eligible for them) in calendar year 2012 or later.
Provides for: (1) modification of primary insurance amount (PIA) factors to reflect changes in life expectancy; (2) computation of the PIA for an individual who has or has had a period of disability and who initially becomes eligible for such benefits in or after 2012; (3) acceleration of the increase in retirement age to 67; and (4) automatic appropriations to maintain the balance ratio of the Social Security Trust Funds at not less than 100% for the calendar year commencing during each fiscal year.
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 2/12/2009: Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Points in Favor
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
Points Against
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
Visitor Comments
Lynn Lewis
March 4, 2009, 11:36am (report abuse)Nobody without a law degree can understand this. It is ridiculous to do anything other than manage the Social Security fund with its original intent: what we put it in is what we get out. Otherwise, allow us to take out our fair share and invest it ourselves. End of story.
bhetti
May 17, 2009, 1:11pm (report abuse)I don't understand how this bill makes SS more fair unless it incorporates earnings sharing so divorced disabled women aren't left in the cold.
Chester Morrison
March 2, 2010, 1:05pm (report abuse)The fund's insolvency is due to the fact that for the last quarter century the trust fund has financed government spending (at least since Johnson used it to finance the war in Vietnam), not because it's a ponzi scheme. You can make an argument for extending the retirment age to 67 based on longevity, but it's a stretch to prorate the premium when you've borrowed from the fund extensively without repayment, which only now seems to be an afterthought in need of correction.
bheld
April 12, 2010, 6:38pm (report abuse)No wonder the present atmosphere in Washington is so corrupt and geared to spending. Our trusted leaders have been stealing our money for years. An old boss of mine owned a credit union and stole from it. All he got was 90 days house arrest with an anklet bracelet. Appears to me all we need is credible and true enforcement of our current laws, not new ones.
TJ
June 25, 2010, 12:37pm (report abuse)This bill is only another iteration
of the attempts to reduce benefits by playing with inflation and related adjustments. Currently the
annual COLA adjustment of benefits is zero although the actual inflation rate is at least 2% and higher if you takeCPI-E instead ofCPI-W which is currently used.
Sponsors of these bills should be ashamed of themselves. I call this "cutting the hot dogs in half at the old age home".