Disabling Social Security
by matt at 7:00 am on May 3rd, 2005 in Bush Man Date, Social SecurityBack in February, at a Florida stop on his Social Security misinformation tour where he abused the English language as if it was a piñata, the President took a question from an attendee:
Q: I do have a question. I’m on Social Security.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
Q: And I’m disabled, and I just wondered if there’s going to an intensified program into some of the disability benefits that they have now.
THE PRESIDENT: No.
Q: Okay. (Laughter.) Whatever program that you put out for Social Security I’m fully behind it. You have my support.
At the time this appearance took place, there was no plan on the table. It was assumed that, despite being completely irrelevant to long term solvency, private accounts would be the extent of the President’s “solution.” No one in the media expected any cut in the Social Security disability benefit, and while the President closed the door on raising the benefit, he certainly didn’t indicate that a decrease was on the way.
The President’s proposed change in the Social Security benefit structure is essentially a plan known as “progressive price indexing,” which has been designed by investment executive Robert Pozen. Analysis by the Social Security Administration’s actuaries shows that Mr. Pozen’s plan would reduce benefits for average earners retiring in 2075 by 28 percent, relative to the current benefit structure, and that this reduction would apply equally to retirees, survivors, and people with disabilities.
Who wants to bet that the woman in Florida isn’t “fully behind” Social Security privatization now?
ian wrote:
> Analysis by the Social Security Administration’s actuaries shows that Mr. Pozen’s plan would reduce benefits for average earners retiring in 2075 by 28 percent, relative to the current benefit structure, and that this reduction would apply equally to retirees, survivors, and people with disabilities.
Yeah, I don’t get it. As I argued on my site, as best as I can tell, Bush’s plan actually ends up being worse for most poeple than if they actually did nothing at all to fix Social Security which most analysises predict would mean at 2041 having to pay reduced benefits at about 75% of what was promised to retirees (or to put it the other way, a reduction of 25%). Am I off in this reasoning?
Posted 03 May 2005 at 11:33 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>Am I off in this reasoning?
No. Bush is trying to weaken support in the population segments that vote, hence the cuts get bigger up the scale. And the annoying part is that they want to start cutting now, when the date of the trust fund exhaustion could move farther out.
Politics over policy again and again.
Posted 04 May 2005 at 12:00 am ¶