Elizabeth Warren is pushing Democrats to expand Social Security rather than cut it, a move that could pressure presumed party frontrunner Hillary Clinton to move left.
Warren, a Massachusetts senator and favorite of progressives, has added expanding Social Security to the list of liberal priorities she has indirectly suggested that Clinton needs to embrace to gain her support.
While Warren has ruled out a run for president, progressives still hope that she can exert a leftward influence on Clinton, who is viewed as closer to Wall Street and big business.
Warren appeared to play that role Thursday morning on CBS when asked if she would support Clinton’s candidacy. Warren responded, “I think we have to see first of all if she declares and what she says she wants to run on.”
In that and other recent interviews, Warren conditioned her support on Clinton’s embrace of her own liberal priorities, which now include expanding rather than cutting Social Security.
“I think we need to lower the interest rate on student loans. I think we need to put more money into medical research. I think that we need to raise the minimum wage. Nobody should work full time and still live in poverty. I think we need to strengthen Social Security and expand its reach. There’s a lot to fight over right this minute,” Warren said in another appearance during the congressional break, on the “Today Show.”
“What Elizabeth Warren has done on pushing the ball forward on Social Security is another example of why she’s a bold progressive hero,” said T.J. Helmstetter, a representative for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, an outside group that pushes for progressive causes.
When it comes to elections, Helmstetter said, it is now “not enough for a candidate to say they’ll keep the status quo. For us, it’s really important that a candidate will talk about expanding Social Security.”
During President Obama’s tenure, the political conversation has more often centered around trimming Social Security spending than increasing it. As the Baby Boom generation has begun to enter retirement, Social Security benefits and, more importantly, Medicare benefits have run up the federal debt and squeezed out other federal spending.
The federal debt has more than doubled as a share of economic output since the financial crisis, from 35 percent in 2007 to 74 percent at the end of 2014, and it is set to rise closer to 80 percent of gross domestic product over the next 10 years.
In negotiations with Republicans over cutting deficits and in his budgets, Obama proposed changing the inflation formula used to calculate Social Security benefits to lower spending.
With annual deficits falling to about a third of what they were during the recession, however, Obama has backed away from that negotiating position.
Now, progressives say, there has been a turning point in the discussion.
In March, almost all Democratic senators voted for a symbolic budget amendment to express support for expanding Social Security. Only Tom Carper of Delaware and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota voted against the amendment, which was offered by Warren and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, regarded as a moderate Democrat.
Liberal groups such as the Progressive Change Campaign Committee hailed the symbolic vote as a sign that Democrats have united behind a more populist stance on Social Security.
Increasing Social Security benefits polls well in research conducted by the committee, even when increased payroll taxes on the wealthy to pay for the expansion are included in the question. Progressives hope that it could be part of a campaign platform with populist appeal.
Clinton’s most recent stance on Social Security, stated in a 2008 Democratic primary debate with Obama, was to support a bipartisan commission on reforming Social Security, said Eric Kingson, co-director of the advocacy group Social Security Works and the co-author of a new book calling for an expansion of Social Security.
With past Social Security reforms, increasing inequality and low wage growth, Kingson said, a commission is not appropriate. “My hope would be that the force of logic and the needs of the American people will result in her position evolving … to recognizing that benefits need to be increased,” Kingson said of Clinton.
Just what benefits Warren would like to increase, she has not specified. Warren’s Senate office did not respond to a request for comment.
The messaging amendment approved by most Senate Democrats also did not specify how benefits were to be expanded.
Former Iowa senator Tom Harkin introduced a bill last Congress to change the benefit formula to increase benefits for the average Social Security retirement beneficiary by $70. He also would have lifted the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax, set at $118,500 for 2015. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, has said he would reintroduce the bill this year.
Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., also has introduced a plan to use a different inflation formula that would increase benefits for Social Security beneficiaries, reduce the tax liability of many recipients, and lift the cap on taxable income.
Not all liberals view potential legislation to boost Social Security retirement benefits as a winner on policy and political grounds.
The bills to expand benefits sound like “political candy,” said Gabe Horwitz, director of the economic program at the center-left think tank Third Way. They “sound great until you look under the hood,” and find that many benefits would go to wealthy recipients and that the plans would necessitate large tax hikes.
Democrats are united in wanting to strengthen benefits for the poor, Horwitz said, but there is disagreement about expanding benefits for retirees who are well-off.
This article has been updated to accurately describe the book written by Kingson. It calls for an expansion of Social Security, not Medicaid.
