If you're accustomed to either Krugman's style or typical discussions on Social Security, you'll be unsurprised to find that this argument is long on emotional appeal and short on numbers:
All of this has, I believe, encouraged Biden and his officials to stake out a firm position opposing cuts to America’s social safety net — indeed, calling for increased benefits, to be paid for with increased taxes on corporations and high-income individuals.
Yeah, baby! Is there anything easier than asking somebody else to pay for your benefit? But as I've regularly noted: Social Security is (by law) a universal program that requires benefits to (roughly) equal the amount of money paid into the system (by law). Is Krugman OK with Bill Gates receiving a monthly million-dollar benefit check?
To ask is to answer.
Even the Congressional Budget Office admits this would happen under current law:
Because Social Security benefits are tied to the amount of earnings on which taxes are paid, however, some of that increase in revenues would be offset by additional benefits paid to people with earnings above the maximum taxable amount under current law.
Also: how long would we extend the solvency of Social Security with these huge tax increases and unprecedented changes to the program? Answer: 13 years until we're facing insolvency again:
The first alternative, which would increase the taxable share of earnings from jobs covered by Social Security to 90 percent, would delay the exhaustion of the combined trust funds by 4 years, until calendar year 2037. The second alternative, which would apply the 12.4 percent payroll tax to earnings over $250,000, would delay the exhaustion of the combined trust funds by 13 years, until calendar year 2046.
Having destroyed the universality of Social Security, what will be the next gimmick? Do Paul Krugman and the NY Times even care? Nope: we're just trying to get past the next election.
4 comments:
Tee hee.
Speaking of unfunded spending programs...
CNN:
Texas governor predicted donations would pay for busing migrants out of state. He’s collected less than 1% of that cost
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott boasted shortly after he began soliciting private donations for his controversial migrant busing program that there would likely “be no cost to the state” given the outpouring of support from concerned citizens across the country.
But after nearly two years of fundraising to offset the program’s costs, Abbott’s operation has collected less than half of 1% of the roughly $150 million spent on busing migrants to sanctuary cities, according to a review of state records. And CNN found that the largest donation – $900,000 – never made it into the state’s coffers, either because it was a mistake or a prank.
Records show that at most, around $550,000 has been raised to date.
…Abbott’s office published a running tally online to show how willing people were to support his program. After the $900,000 contribution was submitted online in September, the website showed that donations had reached more than $1.3 million, but in December, the tally was readjusted – dropping back down to around $460,000.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/15/politics/texas-busing-migrants-donations-invs/index.html
0.003% of the money collected. Just 99.997% of the unfunded money to go! Go team Fiscal Discipline!
It seems like the proper solution to the Social Security funding problem is to periodically raise the full retirement age.
It's a move that has actually been done before without causing rebellion, and it genuinely works to extend the solvency of the program.
It's also justified by the increased lifespans in the modern age.
Elections go so much more nicely when it's the Republican Party that's openly "scaring Grandma."
It's also justified by the increased lifespans in the modern age.
Or, we could decrease lifespans. That's exactly what makes the "cut Medicare" proposal doubly effective!
Post a Comment