Many public-policy problems are genuinely hard to solve. Some are surprises. We are caught unawares. Say, 9/11. Other social problems are so complex that, even with the best of political will, it’s hard to make progress. Say, improving schools.
But an aging population doesn’t fit this formula. The problem is clear; solutions are at hand.
I agree with Samuelson on the above. But then, after outlining the usual problems of benefit cuts vs. rising taxes, he says this:
We need to rewrite the social contract between generations to reflect these changed conditions — longer life expectancies and greater private wealth. Eligibility ages need to be raised; benefits for wealthier recipients need to be trimmed. At age 65, typical Americans live two more decades. We simply cannot afford to subsidize a fifth of the population for an additional 20 years or so.
Instead, politicians freeze at the mere mention of cuts in Social Security and Medicare. (Cuts in Medicare are usually imposed on “providers” — hospitals and doctors.) These programs are sacrosanct. Do not touch.
Democrats bear a disproportionate responsibility for the stalemate, because Social Security and Medicare are their signature programs. For decades, liberals have accused anyone who suggests benefit reductions as being cruel, uncaring and immoral. Naturally, Republicans find debate on these terms unattractive and have increasingly abstained. The result has been to make political cowardice intellectually respectable.
The irony is that the pro-government (Democratic) party is, quietly, weakening government by its staunch support of Social Security and Medicare, which systematically squeezes other programs. This also precludes any serious effort to reduce budget deficits. Yes, taxes will have to go up; but some spending will have to go down, and this is virtually impossible if Medicare and Social Security are excluded from cuts.
He is showing his bias here. He ignores the option of raising the cap on the wealthy. Which is similar to lowering the benefits of the wealthy later except it gets more revenue in the system sooner. And my guess is that he doesn't count the taxation of SS benefits as revenue into the SS program, he just mingles that with general taxed revenue.
The reason I believe Republicans bear disproportionate responsibility for this is because there have always been a number of them that have never accepted SS and they try to undermine it whenever they can. It could have been fixed fairly easily back in 2001, but instead Bush lowered taxes way more than he should have and didn't pay for his Iraq adventure. Trillions wasted. Down the drain. So quickly that by 2005, he went on his privatization tour with an empty safe claiming there wasn't money to pay for SS when in 2001 everyone economist was projecting surpluses as far as the eye could see and the Rs screamed what a terrible thing that would be. So they made sure that it would never happen again. |
