- Buy OEM Siemens Solid Edge ST4 (32 bit)
- Buy OEM Symantec Norton Ghost™ 12.0
- Buy Cheap Adobe Creative Suite 5 Master Collection Student and Teacher Edition MAC
- Buy Cheap Lynda.com - Photoshop CS6 One On One: Fundamentals
- Buy Intuit Quicken Home & Business 2011 (en)
- Download Adobe After Effects CS6
- Buy OEM Mariner Write 3 MAC
- Download Black and White in Photoshop CS4 and Photoshop Lightroom
- Buy OEM Autodesk AutoCAD Civil 3D 2014 (64-bit)
- Download Aimersoft DVD Backup MAC
- Discount - Microsoft Office Project Standard 2010 with SP1 (32-bit & 64-bit)
|Economist Paul Krugman Supports Expanding Social Security|
|News Releases - Business & Economy|
|Written by Sen. Tom Harkin|
|Monday, 25 November 2013 15:08|
November 25, 2013
Calls Efforts like Harkin Proposal “… An idea that deserves to be on the table.”
In a recent column, New York Times op-ed contributor, and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said there is a strong case for expanding, not contracting, Social Security.
Earlier this year, Harkin introduced the Strengthening Social Security Act of 2013, a bill that would increase benefits by approximately $65 per month for future beneficiaries, ensure that Cost of Living Adjustments reflect the actual costs faced by seniors, and extend the life of the Trust Fund through 2049 by ensuring that payroll taxes apply fairly to every dollar of wages.
Today, half of Americans have less than $10,000 in savings, and only 14 percent are “very confident” they will have enough money to retire, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Nationally, Social Security lifts more than one-third of retirees from poverty, and the impact in Iowa is even more dramatic: three in 10 Iowans over the age of 65 rely on Social Security as their only source of income, provides a modest benefit, an average $14,000 per year, to approximately 400,000 seniors across Iowa.
Read Krugman’s article here.
Expanding Social Security
By PAUL KRUGMAN
For many years there has been one overwhelming rule for people who wanted to be considered serious inside the Beltway. It was this: You must declare your willingness to cut Social Security in the name of “entitlement reform.” It wasn’t really about the numbers, which never supported the notion that Social Security faced an acute crisis. It was instead a sort of declaration of identity, a way to show that you were an establishment guy, willing to impose pain (on other people, as usual) in the name of fiscal responsibility.
But a funny thing has happened in the past year or so. Suddenly, we’re hearing open discussion of the idea that Social Security should be expanded, not cut. Talk of Social Security expansion has even reached the Senate, with Tom Harkin introducing legislation that would increase benefits. A few days ago Senator Elizabeth Warren gave a stirring floor speech making the case for expanded benefits.
Where is this coming from? One answer is that the fiscal scolds driving the cut-Social-Security orthodoxy have, deservedly, lost a lot of credibility over the past few years. (Giving the ludicrous Paul Ryan an award for fiscal responsibility? And where’s my debt crisis?) Beyond that, America’s overall retirement system is in big trouble. There’s just one part of that system that’s working well: Social Security. And this suggests that we should make that program stronger, not weaker.
Before I get there, however, let me briefly take on two bad arguments for cutting Social Security that you still hear a lot.
One is that we should raise the retirement age — currently 66, and scheduled to rise to 67 — because people are living longer. This sounds plausible until you look at exactly who is living longer. The rise in life expectancy, it turns out, is overwhelmingly a story about affluent, well-educated Americans. Those with lower incomes and less education have, at best, seen hardly any rise in life expectancy at age 65; in fact, those with less education have seen their life expectancy decline.
So this common argument amounts, in effect, to the notion that we can’t let janitors retire because lawyers are living longer. And lower-income Americans, in case you haven’t noticed, are the people who need Social Security most.
The other argument is that seniors are doing just fine. Hey, their poverty rate is only 9 percent.
There are two big problems here. First, there are well-known flaws with the official poverty measure, and these flaws almost surely lead to serious understatement of elderly poverty. In an attempt to provide a more realistic picture, the Census Bureau now regularly releases a supplemental measure that most experts consider superior — and this measure puts senior poverty at 14.8 percent, close to the rate for younger adults.
Furthermore, the elderly poverty rate is highly likely to rise sharply in the future, as the failure of America’s private pension system takes its toll.
When you look at today’s older Americans, you are in large part looking at the legacy of an economy that is no more. Many workers used to have defined-benefit retirement plans, plans in which their employers guaranteed a steady income after retirement. And a fair number of seniors (like my father, until he passed away a few months ago) are still collecting benefits from such plans.
Today, however, workers who have any retirement plan at all generally have defined-contribution plans — basically, 401(k)’s — in which employers put money into a tax-sheltered account that’s supposed to end up big enough to retire on. The trouble is that at this point it’s clear that the shift to 401(k)’s was a gigantic failure. Employers took advantage of the switch to surreptitiously cut benefits; investment returns have been far lower than workers were told to expect; and, to be fair, many people haven’t managed their money wisely.
As a result, we’re looking at a looming retirement crisis, with tens of millions of Americans facing a sharp decline in living standards at the end of their working lives. For many, the only thing protecting them from abject penury will be Social Security. Aren’t you glad we didn’t privatize the program?
So there’s a strong case for expanding, not contracting, Social Security. Yes, this would cost money, and it would require additional taxes — a suggestion that will horrify the fiscal scolds, who have been insisting that if we raise taxes at all, the proceeds must go to deficit reduction, not to making our lives better. But the fiscal scolds have been wrong about everything, and it’s time to start thinking outside their box.
Realistically, Social Security expansion won’t happen anytime soon. But it’s an idea that deserves to be on the table — and it’s a very good sign that it finally is.For more information, please contact Senator Harkin’s Press Office at (202) 224-3254.
Tags See All Tags