The Social Security Reform Debate Rages On! - AEI.org
The search for a pathway to resolution of Social Security’s looming financial insolvency continued this week. Evidence of this can be seen in AEI’s “This Week in Policy” post, which summarizes several key positions in the debate over the program’s future. AEI’s post contrasts the arguments of several of its researchers on fundamental policy issues such as payroll tax rates, taxable maximums, and benefit limitations, while also considering the program’s inherent progressive intent.
AEI’s post examines a Wall Street Journal post by Phil Gramm and Michael Solon warning that payroll tax increases and elimination of the cap on taxable wages would result in slower economic growth, thus blunting the desired results for long-term solvency. That debate position, AEI notes, favors constraining benefit growth. Similarly, the article cites Andrew Biggs’ position that “disproportionate benefits to high-income households” need to be addressed with capped benefit levels, a move a bit more stringent than merely curtailing benefit growth.
Since the Social Security insolvency topic is, in essence, a massive debate, AEI’s article today also offers a somewhat contrarian viewpoint on benefit distribution. The article references suggestions from Kyle Pomerleau and Alex Durante that “Social Security is not as generous to high earners as many believe.” They argue that the program’s progressive design contains an inherent argument against many of the suggestions to reduce (or limit) benefits for higher earners.
See? Addressing Social Security’s long-term funding problems is not a simple matter, and the viewpoints described above are but a sampling of what lies ahead for Congress when its focus finally sharpens on this issue. With the “cliff” or, more directly, the benefit cut only six years away at this point, the 120th Congress can be expected to see Social Security solvency occupy a prominent place on its agenda.
America’s seniors can hope, anyway.