Press coverage of Social Security and reform can often be skimpy – a few standard lines, filled in with a few standard quotes from the usual suspects, and that's about it. While I don't agree with everything in Emily Kaiser's long Reuters article on Social Security reform, it's nice to see the issue get the thorough treatment it deserves.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
A good survey article on Social Security reform
Friday, April 8, 2011
Ezra Klein’s “Easy Solution” to Social Security reform?
Not so easy. What worries me about folks like Klein isn't that they disagree with me on Social Security – most people probably do, and many have good reasons for doing so. It's that his discussion of Social Security reform seems blissfully ignorant of the sorts of issues that people who are even a smidge to the right of center care about. As much as he confronts the right on policy, I'm not sure how well he really understands where people to the right of him are coming from. And without that, it's tough to think about the sorts of compromises we'll eventually need to make. In any case, check out my discussion of Klein's recent Social Security piece over at AEI's Enterprise Blog.
The Social Security Mail Bag
As I've mentioned before, I've gotten some not-entirely-supportive responses from seniors with regard to my comments on Social Security COLAs and Medicare Part B premiums – that, in effect, while they think they've been treated badly in recent years, overall they've come out ahead. As I predicted in a recent Associated Press And it has, though mostly hate email. But over at AEI's Enterprise Blog, Nick Schulz shows some of the snail mail I've gotten. A letter written by hand conveys so much more feeling than email ever can. Check it out.
story, "This will get me hate mail."
Does Ryan Budget “Fast-Track Social Security Cuts”?
Over at the Huffington Post, Daniel Marans of Social Security Works argues that Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan – which it could be argued effectively ducks Social Security reform – is actually a fast track to benefit cuts. Marans says that This, I think, is representative of the general lack of confidence liberals have in their own position, in that they view pretty much any attempts to reform Social Security as tantamount to cuts in Social Security. Now, I think that Social Security will involve benefit cuts, given that a) people aren't keen on paying more into a program which they regard as insecure and not such a great deal; b) middle and high earning households can make up for future benefit cuts by saving more today; and c) it's much harder for individuals to make up for cuts in future Medicare benefits with additional saving, given the structure of that program. In effect, all the Ryan budget does is amp up a provision that's already on the books. Under current law, if the trust fund balance falls below 20 percent of annual outgoes, the program's Trustees are required to submit a plan to increase Social Security taxes or reduce benefits in order to maintain the trust fund's solvency. Obviously, once the trust fund balance has gotten that low, the changes necessary to keep the system on track will be severe. Ryan's plan effectively would require the Trustees to issue their recommendations for solvency anytime the program is insolvent over the long-term, meaning a 75-year horizon. This is a very different bar for action by the Trustees, but it serves to involve them – and the administration – in the process of getting Social Security reform moving. My question is why the Left assumes that a provision requiring the Trustees – all but one of whom are appointed by the President, and most of whom are actual members of the administration – would necessarily mean benefit cuts rather than tax increases? Wouldn't this approach favor the tax-increase approach, given who's in power these days? My gut is that, despite their rhetoric that Americans strongly favor tax increases (usually on other people) over benefit cuts, the Left isn't quite sure that political process will play out that way. And if it won't play out that way even with Democrats in power, I think that undermines their general narrative on where Americans stand on Social Security reform in the context of the other fiscal and budgetary issues we face.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Could Social Security Buy You Out for 83 Cents on the Dollar?
My AEI colleague Alex Pollock asks that question over at The American.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Munnell: To cut deficit, look to Social Security
Boston College's Alicia Munnell has a nice piece in the New York Times today looking at ways to fix Social Security. A quick cut: The task force suggested four major changes: indexing the full retirement age (after it reaches 67) to improvements in longevity; switching to a measure of inflation that grows more slowly than the one now used to calculate Social Security's cost-of-living adjustment; gradually increasing the earnings subject to the payroll tax (and the basis for benefits) to about $180,000 from $106,800 today; and gradually subjecting both employer and employee premiums for group health insurance to payroll and income taxes. Click here to read the whole piece.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Agenda for April8 meeting of 2011 Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods
2011 Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods Meeting Agenda April 8-9, 2011 The meetings will be held in the offices of the Social Security Advisory Board: 400 Virginia Avenue SW, Suite 625, Washington, DC 20024 Friday, April 8, 2011 9:30am-11:00am Complexity Science models Presentation by Alan Mills, Milliman 11:00am-11:15am Break 11:15am-12:30pm Projecting revenue from the taxation of benefits Presentation by the Office of the Chief Actuary, SSA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
