An imminent debate on social security: from the political office

Welcome to From the political officea daily newsletter bringing you the latest reporting and analysis from the NBC News Politics team from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail.

In today’s edition, Sahil Kapur dives into a Social Security debate that’s particularly relevant to this year’s Senate candidates. Plus, Jonathan Allen examines the delicate position Democrats find themselves in regarding corporate donations.

—Adam Wollner

Senate candidates are running in favor of raising Social Security taxes on higher incomes to avoid a cut in benefits

By Sahil Kapur

A number of Senate candidates in blue and red states are campaigning to raise Social Security taxes on higher earners to prevent a benefit cut from taking effect in less than six years.

Currently, Americans are taxed on their income up to $184,500 to fund Social Security. These candidates, most of them Democrats, are calling for the removal of this cap in order to increase revenues, before the fast-approaching 2032 insolvency deadline.

Social Security is fully funded through the fourth quarter of 2032, according to its latest trustees’ report, after which benefits will be automatically cut by 22% — unless Congress acts. The class of senators elected this fall will have a six-year term ending in January 2033, giving them the authority to meet that deadline.

On the battlefield of Michigan, the Democratic candidate Abdoul El-Sayed said in a statement that if elected this fall, “I will end the tax cap on Social Security to ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share. That way, Social Security can last for decades.”

He called for removing the cap in his official campaign platform.

In red-leaning, Democratic Iowa Josh Turek supports eliminating the payroll tax cap, a spokesperson said, adding that if elected senator, he “will protect Social Security by lifting the cap to force billionaires to pay their fair share.”

And in the Republican stronghold of Texas, the Democrats James Talarico is running on a platform to “ensure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share to Social Security by eliminating the tax cap for those earning more than $400,000 a year.”

Talarico’s proposal highlights an early disagreement among the idea’s supporters: Should they eliminate the cap altogether or raise the new tax threshold to up to $400,000? Some lawmakers — including many Democrats — have been politically sensitive to the idea of ​​raising taxes on incomes below that amount.

Read more →

The corporate PAC dilemma for Democrats

Analysis by Jonathan Allen

Refusing campaign contributions from corporate PACs has become an article of faith among progressives.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that corporate PACs can only give $5,000 per election directly to a candidate – barely enough to influence races that bring in tens of millions of dollars – the representative. Ashley HinsonR-Iowa, showed why that commitment isn’t as simple as it seems during a Senate debate last night against the state’s Democratic representative. Josh Turek.

Turek, she pointed out, benefits from massive advertising buys by Democratic super PACs, funded largely by billionaires, corporations and dark money groups that don’t have to disclose their donors. In fact, the main Democratic vehicle supported by the Senate minority leader Chuck Schumerthe majority PAC in the Senate, had raised $150 million, largely from these sources, through the end of June, the most recent reporting period.

Thus, Hinson argued, Turek misleads the public.

“It basically takes money laundered from the PAC by corporations,” Hinson said. “If you don’t want to take this corporate PAC money, because that’s how it flows. It goes through people like Chuck Schumer, it’s fine to support you.”

Turek ignored his invitation to call on outside corporate-funded groups to stop supporting him.

His challenge could face Democrats in every crucial Senate and House race. Technically, super PACs can’t coordinate directly with campaigns, but they are designed to amplify candidates’ messages. Republicans are doing the same thing, and this year they’re raising a lot more money to do it.

A large part of the public feels justified in wanting elected officials to be freed from the restrictive ties that can be created with political donations. That’s why so many Democratic candidates are patting themselves on the back for refusing to take small, direct contributions from corporate PACs, which are funded by employee donations.

But how can a candidate turn his back on a super PAC that spends tens of millions of dollars — far more than the $5,000 that comes from a direct corporate contribution to the PAC? And when it comes to Schumer, a bogeyman for the Democrats’ left wing, how could they turn their backs on him after he raised all this money for them?

Democratic voters could be surprised if Schumer wins next year’s party leadership election after many candidates tried to keep their distance from him. But they shouldn’t be. The election for minority leader or majority leader, depending on whether Democrats flip the Senate, will be conducted by secret ballot.

Maybe they’ll reject Schumer like they reject corporate donations to the PAC. But don’t bet the super PAC on this.

That’s all that’s coming from the politburo for now. Today’s newsletter was written by Adam Wollner and Lauren Zola.

If you have any comments (like or dislike), please email us at politicsnewsletter@nbcuni.com

And if you’re a fan, share it with everyone. They can register here.