Esquire had a very interesting article this month where they invited four former Senators ( Bradley, Hart, Packwood and Danforth) along with Lawrence O'Donnell to spend three days and attempt to balance the federal budget by 2020.
They were able to succeed and at the same time save social security. They saved it by making relatively modest changes--increasing the eligibility age to 70 over the next 50 years. Computing the benefit from the previous earning average of 38 years instead of 35. Re-calculate the COLA figure based upon more accurate inflation calculations. They proposed making income up to $125,000 be taxed for SS instead of just $101,000 but that was shot down by the Republicans on the committee.
The main point is that saving social security doesn't need to be done in by making it private. Relatively modest changes, implemented over decades, can extend the life of the program decades. The Esquire group ensured its solvency through 2085, which is realistically probably as good as you're going to get given the uncertainty of projecting that far into the future.
Other highlights -
-Cutting the defense budget by $167 billion
-Closing tax loop holes on both individuals and corporations
-Increase gasoline tax by $1.00
They did not do anything substantial on the revenue side and extended the bush tax cuts indefinitely. So some of the cuts could be offset by say, allowing the tax cuts to expire on the top 2% or even creating a new millionaire's tax bracket at 41% for those making say above $1 million, or even $5 million to make it especially difficult for the GOP to attack.
But the larger point is that their changes were relatively minor and they were able to balance the budget without the types of budget cuts the GOP are proposing. The problem today is purely politics. Politicians love talking about the big problems but they rarely do anything to actually solve the problems because it will always be unpopular. Whatever they chose they stand to alienate some group which will probably translates into electoral losses.
They were able to succeed and at the same time save social security. They saved it by making relatively modest changes--increasing the eligibility age to 70 over the next 50 years. Computing the benefit from the previous earning average of 38 years instead of 35. Re-calculate the COLA figure based upon more accurate inflation calculations. They proposed making income up to $125,000 be taxed for SS instead of just $101,000 but that was shot down by the Republicans on the committee.
The main point is that saving social security doesn't need to be done in by making it private. Relatively modest changes, implemented over decades, can extend the life of the program decades. The Esquire group ensured its solvency through 2085, which is realistically probably as good as you're going to get given the uncertainty of projecting that far into the future.
Other highlights -
-Cutting the defense budget by $167 billion
-Closing tax loop holes on both individuals and corporations
-Increase gasoline tax by $1.00
They did not do anything substantial on the revenue side and extended the bush tax cuts indefinitely. So some of the cuts could be offset by say, allowing the tax cuts to expire on the top 2% or even creating a new millionaire's tax bracket at 41% for those making say above $1 million, or even $5 million to make it especially difficult for the GOP to attack.
But the larger point is that their changes were relatively minor and they were able to balance the budget without the types of budget cuts the GOP are proposing. The problem today is purely politics. Politicians love talking about the big problems but they rarely do anything to actually solve the problems because it will always be unpopular. Whatever they chose they stand to alienate some group which will probably translates into electoral losses.
I just wish that the American public can become educated on this issue instead of listening to Tea Party Politicians.
Love to educate myself on the issues of the day.
ReplyDeleteSadly no one else I know seems to care.