The Washington Post editorial board likes President Bush’s proposal to adjust how Social Security benefits are indexed:
IS PRESIDENT BUSH advocating cruel cuts in Social Security? Consider these calculations by the Urban Institute’s C. Eugene Steuerle: Government-provided retirement benefits for the average couple retiring in 1960 amounted to $195,000. Today, that amount has grown to $710,000 ($439,000 in Social Security and $271,000 in Medicare, which didn’t exist in 1960). For a couple retiring 25 years from now, lifetime benefits are scheduled to exceed $1 million. Mr. Steuerle’s numbers are adjusted for inflation, so this is real growth.
Is this sensible, given other pressing demands? Is it sustainable, given the impending retirement of the baby boomers? The answer to both questions is no, which is why Mr. Bush’s proposal to adjust the way that increases in Social Security benefits are calculated — a method known as progressive indexing — merits serious consideration.
Bush unveiled the propsosal more than a month ago. The WaPo’s comments are welcome, albeit belated.blog comments powered by Disqus
September 27, 2016 11:38 AM by Doug Powers
Explosions in NJ & NYC combined with stabbing spree in Minnesota sure to get many extra focused on climate change (Sunday open thread)
September 18, 2016 08:21 AM by Doug Powers
September 13, 2016 09:38 AM by Doug Powers
The Wash. Post should have given Elijah Cummings a writing credit on their ‘leave Hillary alone’ editorial
September 10, 2016 09:42 PM by Doug Powers
Congress shmongress! Obama steps off jumbo jet in China, signs Paris Agreement to limit emissions (open thread)
September 4, 2016 11:50 AM by Doug Powers