‘Expand’ Social Security means “increase benefits”

(Rob Garver, A longtime reporter on the intersection of the federal government and the private sector, “Democrats Call for Major Change in Social Security,” pg online @ https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/07/13/Democrats-Call-Major-Change-Social-Security //um-ef)

In a move that may turn out to be politically shrewd but will almost certainly turn out to be practically ineffective, 70 Democrats on Sunday delivered a letter to the White House urging President Obama, in the vaguest of possible language, to “expand Social Security benefits for millions of Americans.”

“As employers continue moving from a defined benefit model to a defined contribution model of retirement savings, it is critical that we fight to protect and expand Social Security –– the only guaranteed source of income in retirement,” the lawmakers wrote, on the eve of the once-in-a-decade White House Conference on Aging that convenes today.

The word “expand” can mean different things, but it seems fairly clear that the members of Congress behind the letter, including presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), are using the verb as a synonym for “increase.”

“Today, two-thirds of retirees depend on Social Security for the majority of their income,” they write. “More than half (53 percent) of today’s working Americans are not expected to have sufficient resources upon their retirement to maintain their standard of living.”

Why they didn’t specifically say that they want to require the government to pay more money to retirees every month isn’t clear. It might be that they don’t want to open themselves to attacks from Republicans over the fiscal responsibility of raising the cost of one of the nation’s largest entitlement programs. But that doesn’t make all that much sense, as one of the key points behind such a proposal, clearly, is to draw a sharp line between Democrats and Republicans.