Over at AEI's Enterprise Blog…
Monday, November 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Occasional comments on the economics and politics of Social Security policy by Andrew Biggs.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(320)
-
▼
November
(17)
- Why Kevin Drum Is Right on Social Security…
- New working papers from the Michigan Retirement Re...
- First we raid Social Security, then we raid Medicare…
- AEI event presentations/video available online
- New working papers from the Center for Retirement ...
- How well prepared are Americans for retirement
- New working papers from MRRC
- Do seniors deserve that extra $250?
- Social Security Online Benefit Calculator Leads to...
- Updated Social Security Fix-It Book Available
- The Fiscal Wake Up Tour Takes to the Airwaves
- Presentations from APPAM session on the challenges...
- New paper: “Marital History, Race, and Social Secu...
- New paper: Literacy and Financial Sophistication A...
- Upcoming event: Social Security reform and labor f...
- Kristof’s silly health care statistics
- Law Review Articles on Social Security
-
▼
November
(17)
About me
- Andrew G. Biggs
- I am a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, where my work focuses on Social Security policy. Previously I held several positions within the Social Security Administration, including Deputy Commissioner for Policy and principal Deputy Commissioner. Prior to that I was a Social Security Analyst at the Cato Institute. In 2005 I worked on Social Security reform at the White House National Economic Council, and in 2001 I was on the staff of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. My Bachelor's degree is from the Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland. I have Master's degrees from Cambridge University and the University of London and a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and Political Science. I can be contacted at andrew.biggs @ aei.org.
Posts
Don't miss a single fascinating post!
Blog links
2 comments:
CSSS had a mandate to not include a payroll tax increase no matter how modest. Given that the argument that the right is arguing in good faith and that "all options are on the table" is ridiculous. Kevin is wrong.
I'm not sure how that's relevant. Yes, the CSSS had a mandate regarding taxes, personal accounts, benefits for near-retirees, etc. (Even then, as it turns out, Model 3 from the Commission effectively violates the tax pledge -- hard to keep folks in line.) But it's not clear why any new commission, or just a group of legislators working in regular order, would be bound by that. People have their preferences, obviously, but the idea behind any bipartisan approach is that neither side can get everything it wants and so has to compromise. Bush opened himself to many compromises regarding Social Security reform, far more than the Democrats did, so I don't see anything in recent precedents that tells me a positive outcome isn't possible.
Post a Comment