Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Chuck Blahous – one of the public Trustees of Social Security and Medicare – argues against the careless use of the phrase "slashing benefits": In no true sense, therefore, would any current Social Security reform proposal "slash" benefits. Leaders on both sides of the aisle should acknowledge that we are actually negotiating over a rate of benefit growth. The irony in all of this is that if we dither long enough, ultimately we will indeed face the threat of benefits being "slashed" by a full 22%, according to last year's Social Security Trustees' report. It's not a reformed Social Security system that threatens to cut benefits, but the status quo—and our elected leaders would do well to acknowledge this reality. I don't totally agree with Chuck – think that it's ok for the left to talk about benefit cuts when they're actually referring to reductions in replacement rates, meaning benefits/pre-retirement earnings, just as the right talks about tax increase when we really mean taxes/earnings. But his basic point that we need to think hard about what we mean and not be careless in using politically charged language is right on to me.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Chuck Blahous on “slashing benefits”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I get the point, but if doing nothing will cause benefits to be 'slashed', then a plan which delivers less than doing nothing can fairly be described as slashing benefits.
Post a Comment