One of the more glaring possible outcomes in the grand bargain would be a plan to “reform” Social Security for the long term.
|By: David Dayen Thursday November 18, 2010 2:47 pm|
Social Security benefits are, on average, extremely low. They are not a sufficient replacement for prior earnings, and they aren’t really enough for subsistence living absent other sources of income. Cutting that meager benefit is simply the wrong path and will send many seniors into abject poverty.
|By: David Dayen Thursday October 21, 2010 12:31 pm|
The independent chief actuary of Social Security says predicts big benefit cuts for the middle class if privatization and indexing are part of Social Security reform.
|By: David Dayen Friday September 10, 2010 5:05 pm|
RJ Eskow reported yesterday on a rumored deal coming out of the deficit commission on Social Security. It sounds like a really bad version of progressive price indexing, where benefits are cut for the vast majority of beneficiaries while they are raised slightly for those at the lowest income. This will be pitched as “saving” Social Security by cutting it for almost everyone, and will turn it into more of a welfare program than a social insurance program into which everybody pays.
The new proposal would pit middle-class seniors against the elderly poor, forcing them to compete for a stripped-down pool of dollars. The end result would be the one that many Commission members have pursued for years: to cut the most stable and successful program in the Federal government’s history.
|By: David Dayen Saturday September 4, 2010 7:52 am|
Earl Blumenauer, the Portland-area Democrat who raised eyebrows with his story in the New York Times suggesting potential benefit changes to Social Security, again reiterated to Tim Fernholz that he never intended to call the Social Security Trust Fund a “Ponzi scheme,” as Bai interpreted. He also talked about his ideas for the budget in general and Social Security in particular.