While I was pleased that a June 6 editorial urged Democrats to offer a Social Security plan, I was disappointed in the analysis of my legislation, which would restore Social Security's solvency by assessing a 3 percent payroll tax, matched by employers, on all income of more than $90,000.

The Post suggested that my proposal, the Social Security Forever Act, was fiscally inadequate and unbalanced, unfairly taxing the wealthiest Americans.

Two-thirds of retired Americans rely on Social Security for more than half their income. Additionally, medical and prescription drug costs are far outpacing the growth of Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, and pension benefits are shrinking dramatically.

In other words, The Post wants seniors to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthiest -- which were funded almost entirely from the Social Security surplus -- with benefits cuts for themselves. Where is the equity in that?

The idea of lifting the cap on earnings is not original, but it is the right thing to do. My plan guarantees Americans 100 percent of their promised benefits while closing the Social Security funding gap. More important, benefits would be protected for retirees and future generations of Americans.


U.S. Representative (D-Fla.)