The deficit commission and Social Security

I'm sure I'm going to be writing about this subject quite a bit as the details unfold, but I think the deficit commission proposals are a step in the right direction with regard to reforming Social Security for the 21st century. Writing for the Atlantic, Clive Crook thinks so too "In praise of Bowles-Simpson":

Some of the proposals probably ought to be bolder. On social security, for instance, the main points are: index the retirement age to longevity in such a way that it would rise from 67 under current law to 69 only by 2075; make the benefit formula more progressive; and tweak the inflation-indexing formula so that it is slightly less generous. The savings add up; the changes would be phased in so gradually as to be imperceptible (except for the elderly poor, who would be better off than under current law). It's mild to a fault. I don't understand why so many Democrats are aghast at this.

In my opinion, it's ridiculous to say that a program formed when people where still using horse-and-buggies as a form of transportation must remain untouched in modern society. (Here I simplify: the FICA tax has marched steadily upward.) The default/do nothing option is to impose a 25% benefit cut starting around 2039. Better to take sensible, incremental steps now to secure long-term solvency than chop off benefits in a couple of decades.

Extra – Also in the Atlantic, Megan Mcardle: "On fixing Social Security, and the budget."

More - From Peter Suderman on Reason and SSA trustee Charles Blahous on Economics 21.