Much of the 100-page Social Security 2100 bill proposed Tuesday by Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., seems like déjà vu to retirement expert Marcia Mantell as "he has been pitching this bill for years (since 2014)," she told ThinkAdvisor Wednesday.
That said, she certainly appreciates his "being a champion for improving the solvency of Social Security because that absolutely needs to be addressed."
This year's version certainly is different, said the founder and president of Mantell Retirement Consulting. Not only were there additional sponsors to the bill, but new provisions were added, which she believes is due to the pandemic.
"My overall assessment here is I'm so glad someone is a champion in Washington for Social Security improvements and the area's they're choosing to look at seem to be the right ones," she said.
Here's what she doesn't like about the bill: "It's because of the way Washington works that [the changes] are only temporarily for the next five years," she explained. "And if I could wave my magic wand, I would have them address what needs to be addressed. Reset Social Security's baseline and then keep the law moving forward. … Let's not [just] try these interim temporary solutions, which we all know will be permanent."
That stresses the system for those who receive the money, as well as "throws advisors into a tizzy because how are you supposed to plan for that with your clients?" she asks. Not only does it hurt planning but it forces "people to make bad decisions."
A Closer Look
The expiration of several of these benefits in 2026 is a problem, she says, but there were some provisions she applauded.
1. CPI-E vs. CPI-W
"It doesn't matter. It's so small of a difference. We've been fighting about this for the last 20 years … If we're going to change the law, make it where at minimum every year seniors get [for example] a 2% increase, plus if there's a need to go higher, we don't stick to the current structure of this law to base inflation on a CPI."
