Monday, May 09, 2005

As lives get longer, benefits should come later Change would curb the costs that drive Social Security's shortfall.

When President Bush recently proposed curbing Social Security benefits for middle- and upper-income workers, he certainly took a gamble.

His plan, known as “progressive indexing,” would slice deeply into monthly benefits and not just for the rich. A 25-year-old making $36,000, for instance, would get checks 16% smaller at retirement than what's currently promised. Reductions rise with incomes. Perhaps unsurprisingly, initial reviews of the plan have been mixed at best.

But hate it or love it, Bush's idea at least creates a benchmark to measure other sacrifices against. No cost-free alternative exists, but we think a better tradeoff is available: Increase the retirement age.

The Social Security Crisis- should we cut benefits or raise the retirement age? I'm talking about it Tuesday morning on The Pat Campbell Show.


At 3:26 PM, Blogger Sick Boy said...

Is it me, or has social engineering taken us on this ride? "Give to this..." "Give to that..." "Give more to this research..." "We need better medicines..." "Healthcare Healthcare Healthcare..." God forbid we accept responsibility for lack of action in planning our own future, that would break my heart! People live longer, work less than the WWII generation (fact. Isn't techmology grand?), cleaner water, better diets etc. All this and our collective abdication of personal responsibility. Suck it up America! Liberalism is killing America. Don't forget to vote Demoncat, if you suddenly realize you have been had, vote Demoncat, otherwise your whole life would be a walking contradiction. Right? (Don't think I turn a blind eye to the Republicrats either.)


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home