The major party candidates for Congress in Central Illinois have significantly different views of how to deal with looming financial crises over the federal budget deficit, national debt, and Social Security.
Interest payments on the federal debt are bigger than defense spending, according to the U.S. Treasury and Congressional Budget Office. They’re bigger than Medicare spending. Under the present course, debt payments will outstrip all the other major categories of spending put together in less than 20 years. The Social Security system needs shoring up much sooner. In about six years the amount of money available will become less than the amount owed each year in benefits.
The major party candidates for the 16th and 17th Congressional Districts (representing Bloomington-Normal and Peoria) all acknowledged the problems in WGLT interviews. They differed on how to address them.
Lookup by ZIP code: Which congressional district do you live in?
Let's take Social Security first. There are a limited number of policy tools available: raise the retirement age, increase tax rates, increase the limit on how much income gets taxed, and cut benefits. Back in the 1980s, Congress did all of those. It worked for four decades.
This time around, 17th District Democratic Rep. Eric Sorensen said he doesn't like the idea of raising the tax rate for Social Security.
"If you're struggling today, you should not be paying more. You should be paying less," said Sorensen.
Sorensen said there are many people who are making a lot of money who don't pay taxes on that money and he thinks they should.
Sorensen's Republican opponent is Dillan Vancil.
"We have to look at other alternatives for this next generation that isn't necessarily counting on Social Security being there," said Vancil.
That's a nonstarter for the incumbent Sorensen.
"Social Security payments are a promise your government gives to you and they're going to be there in the end," said Sorensen.
Vancil said the government is going to have to make good on the money it has taken from the Social Security system over decades for existing retirees, but he has no faith in that promise to younger people.
"I just can't see a world where somebody that's turning 18 or 20 years old now, getting their first job, is going to pay in social Social Security now and be able to get it when they're of whatever age that might be so .... we have to look at different options. That's going to benefit this next generation that's been left behind," said Vancil.
Vancil suggested an idea often mentioned by Republicans — essentially privatizing the nation's social insurance program by creating personal retirement accounts and allowing younger people to opt out of paying into Social Security. Vancil even said investment income from worker contributions to those individual accounts could outstrip the defined benefits under the current system. Critics of that idea note the risk if investments don't perform well is on the worker instead of the government backing the system.
LaHood and Nolley
In the 16th District, the Democratic challenger is Paul Nolley. There are two parts to Nolley's proposal to shore up Social Security. Right now, Social Security taxes are on income up to about $185,000. Anything above that doesn't get taxed for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or FICA.
"My proposal is to tax all wages and also capital gains at $250,000 and above, which would shore up the Social Security trust fund for the next 75 years. Now that's not forever, but that's for the next generation," said Nolley.
The 16th District incumbent is Republican Darin LaHood. LaHood said he believes anybody over age 55 should still be part of the existing system. He said he thinks there may need to be a new system for those under that age.
"Some have suggested you have a tiered system, so if you're 18 to 23, you're under a different system. If you're 23 to 28, you're under a different system. If you're 28 to 34, you have a tiered approach going up that is a more fair way to look at that," said LaHood.
LaHood says part of the problem of Congress is that there is a recognition there is a problem but an inability of will to make changes to take care of it. That applies to the national debt and the increasing annual budget deficit.
Democrats like Sorensen and Nolley favor increasing taxes on the wealthy, lowering the military budget, and ending the drain caused by the war in Iran. Republicans like Vancil and LaHood emphasize growing the economy and promote fairer trade that will help domestic revenue.
Congressman LaHood suggests creating a debt commission to make all the tough choices in a bipartisan way...coupled with a single up or down vote to spread the political pain.
Congress might not get serious about that anytime soon. LaHood said that's because voters don't even have that issue in their top ten.
"I think because they haven't had the pressure back home to do it. There's no consequences for taking a number of these votes that add to the debt and deficit," said LaHood. "I wouldn't equate statesmanship with no pressure back home. If people aren't feeling pressure back home on the debt and deficit, then it's problematic.," said LaHood.
LaHood said Democrats and Republicans are equally at fault on the debt and deficit and "eventually the music is going to stop."
