EXPAND SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, visited Iowa last month, promoting expanded benefits.

PAUL KRUGMAN, NY TIMES

As Republican presidential hopefuls trot out their policy agendas — which always involve cutting taxes on the rich while slashing benefits for the poor and middle class — some real new thinking is happening on the other side of the aisle. Suddenly, it seems, many Democrats have decided to break with Beltway orthodoxy, which always calls for cuts in “entitlements.” Instead, they’re proposing that Social Security benefits actually be expanded.

This is a welcome development in two ways. First, the specific case for expanding Social Security is quite good. Second, and more fundamentally, Democrats finally seem to be standing up to antigovernment propaganda and recognizing the reality that there are some things the government does better than the private sector.

Like all advanced nations, America mainly relies on private markets and private initiatives to provide its citizens with the things they want and need, and hardly anyone in our political discourse would propose changing that. The days when it sounded like a good idea to have the government directly run large parts of the economy are long past.

Yet we also know that some things more or less must be done by government. Every economics textbooks talks about “public goods” like national defense and air traffic control that can’t be made available to anyone without being made available to everyone, and which profit-seeking firms, therefore, have no incentive to provide. But are public goods the only area where the government outperforms the private sector? By no means.

One classic example of government doing it better is health insurance. Yes, conservatives constantly agitate for more privatization — in particular, they want to convert Medicare into nothing more than vouchers for the purchase of private insurance — but all the evidence says this would move us in precisely the wrong direction. Medicare and Medicaid are substantially cheaper and more efficient than private insurance; they even involve less bureaucracy. Internationally, the American health system is unique in the extent to which it relies on the private sector, and it’s also unique in its incredible inefficiency and high costs.

And there’s another major example of government superiority: providing retirement security.

Maybe we wouldn’t need Social Security if ordinary people really were the perfectly rational, farsighted agents economists like to assume in their models (and right-wingers like to assume in their propaganda). In an idealized world, 25-year-old workers would base their decisions about how much to save on a realistic assessment of what they will need to live comfortably when they’re in their 70s. They’d also be smart and sophisticated in how they invested those savings, carefully seeking the best trade-offs between risk and return.

In the real world, however, many and arguably most working Americans are saving much too little for their retirement. They’re also investing these savings badly. For example, a recent White House report found that Americans are losing billions each year thanks to investment advisers trying to maximize their own fees rather than their clients’ welfare.


You might be tempted to say that if workers save too little and invest badly, it’s their own fault. But people have jobs and children, and they must cope with all the crises of life. It’s unfair to expect them to be expert investors, too. In any case, the economy is supposed to work for real people leading real lives; it shouldn’t be an obstacle course only a few can navigate.


And in the real world of retirement, Social Security is a shining example of a system that works. It’s simple and clean, with low operating costs and minimal bureaucracy. It provides older Americans who worked hard all their lives with a chance of living decently in retirement, without requiring that they show an inhuman ability to think decades ahead and be investment whizzes as well. The only problem is that the decline of private pensions, and their replacement with inadequate 401(k)-type plans, has left a gap that Social Security isn’t currently big enough to fill. So why not make it bigger?

Needless to say, suggestions along these lines are already provoking near-hysterical reactions, not just from the right, but from self-proclaimed centrists. As I wrote some years ago, calling for cuts to Social Security has long been seen inside the Beltway as a “badge of seriousness, a way of showing how statesmanlike and tough-minded you are.” And it’s only a decade since former President George W. Bush tried to privatize the program, with a lot of centrist support.

But true seriousness means looking at what works and what doesn’t. Privatized retirement schemes work very badly; Social Security works very well. And we should build on that success.

THE DEBT CEILING: WHAT'S AT STAKE

CBS NEWS

It is the economic calamity that no one expects and everyone fears.
Experts agree that failing to raise the nation's debt ceiling by Oct. 17, when U.S. officials say the government will run out of money to pay its bills, would gravely wound the economy, and perhaps even throw it back into recession. Because Treasury bonds and the dollar are cornerstones of the global financial system, meanwhile, the shock wave would be felt around the world.

"The potential is disastrous," said Gus Faucher, senior economist with PNC Financial Services Group. "We would see interest rates spike across the board. We'd see a huge crash in the dollar. People count on lending their money to the federal government and getting it back, and if that trust is taken away -- it's never happened that we haven't met our obligations as a nation -- then that has very, very negative consequences for the U.S. economy."
The consequences are so severe that, even as the government shutdown enters its second week, most seasoned political observers still expect Congress to ultimately reach an eleventh-hour deal to lift the government's borrowing limit.
But what exactly is the debt ceiling, and exactly how worried should Americans be that it could come crashing down?

The debt ceiling is the total amount of money the U.S. government can borrow (by selling Treasury bonds) to pay its obligations, including interest on the national debt, Social Security and Medicare benefits, and many other payments. That limit is currently $16.7 trillion, although technically the government already exceeded it in May. The Treasury Department has since used various measures to continue borrowing.
During World War I, amid uncertainty regarding the total costs of funding U.S. involvement in the conflict, Congress created the cap in 1917 to put an upper limit on federal borrowing. Since 1960, Congress has raised the debt ceiling 78 times.



How is the debt ceiling changed?
Lawmakers can adjust it by passing a standalone bill or by including it in another piece of legislation as an amendment.

Does raising the debt ceiling increase the federal debt?
No. Lifting the borrowing limit simply allows the government to pay its existing bills. That debt exists whether or not Congress authorizes additional borrowing, and to avoid default it must be paid.

Why can't Congress and the White House avoid lifting the cap by cutting federal spending?
Because preventing the government from borrowing to meet its obligations would require all discretionary spending, such as for defense, education, housing and other annual appropriations, to stop, according to the Congressional Research Service. Most of the outlays for mandatory programs, such as Social Security, also would have to be halted, while taxes would need to rise to ensure the government had money to spend. Deep spending cuts and tax hikes would throw the economy into recession.


Jacob Lew

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew recently forecast that on Oct. 17 the government would have about $30 billion on hand. That isn't enough because the government spends as much as $60 billion per day. "If we have insufficient cash on hand, it would be impossible for the United States of America to meet all of its obligations for the first time in our history," he said last week in a letter to congressional leaders.

What happens if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling?
If the government runs low on cash, it will have to withhold a range of payments. Retirees might not get their Social Security checks, especially worrisome for the millions of Americans who depend almost entirely on the social insurance program for income. The same goes for Medicare and Medicaid recipients. Holders of Treasury notes, from Wall Street and other global banks to foreign governments, also could get stiffed, jeopardizing the solvency of many financial institutions and choking off global credit flows.

The U.S. also would struggle to pay the interest on its debt, including a $6 billion payout due at the end of the month. At that point, the U.S. would be in default of its obligations. The value of Treasury bonds and the dollar would nosedive. The nation's borrowing costs would soar as anxious investors demanded a higher return to buy suddenly shaky U.S. debt. And because the interest rate on Treasuries provides a benchmark for rates on other loans, from mortgages and credit cards to car and student loans, borrowing would become far more costly for consumers and businesses. Stock markets in the U.S. and elsewhere around the world would almost certainly plunge.
----
....Consumer confidence plummeted after lawmakers squared off over the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011, while the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index dropped nearly 20 percent. Hiring among small businesses slowed. Ever after a deal was struck to raise the cap in August of that year, credit rating agency Standard & Poor's downgraded U.S. debt for the first time ever.

Beyond the immediate economic fallout of defaulting on its debt, for the U.S. the symbolic blow might be even greater. In the post-World War II era, Treasuries and the greenback have -- for better and for worse -- served as the foundation of the global financial system. A default would shatter the faith on which that system relies.



How much danger are we in?
Although financial markets are not yet in panic mode, the standoff in Washington has them worried. Unlike during the 2011 dispute, when Republicans and most Democrats favored cutting federal spending, the stark division over Obamacare suggests there may be less room for compromise this time around. One clear sign of distress: Interest rates on short-term Treasury bonds rose last week, as investors seek greater yields to offset what they perceive as the greater risk of holding the debt.

Still, most economists, stock analysts and, for all the pointed rhetoric on Capitol Hill, even congressional leaders themselves downplay the chances of a default. The belief is that common sense, or at least a sense of political self-preservation, will prevail.




THE HILL

Under the prioritization option, Treasury theoretically could chose some to make payments, such as to Social Security recipients, but forgo others such as refunds to taxpayers or pay for federal workers.

Treasury officials have said prioritization is technically unworkable when applied to non-bond payments, the group noted.

Under a delay scenario, Medicare and Medicaid payments could be pushed back from Oct. 18 to Oct. 21, for example, when more revenue comes in. Social Security checks set for Nov. 1 could be delayed until Nov. 13, leaving seniors without money for half a month.

BPC said that under this option, the delays would become longer and longer until at some point payments would have to be missed.

Hoagland said that Social Security recipients could sue the government over the delay and could likely win a judgment since the benefits are legally considered entitlements.

In either case, delays or missed payments would be seen as some type of default, BPC warned. They said there is no conceivable way the real deadline is in December or January, as some in Congress appear to believe.

Steering America toward a more secure retirement

photo: Gerald Martineau/The Washington Post


WASHINGTON POST

Anxiety is rising among House Republicans about a strategy of appeasement toward fiscal hard-liners that could require them to embrace not only the sequester but also sharp new cuts to federal health and retirement programs.
Letting the sequester hit was just the first step in a pact forged in January between conservative leaders and Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) to keep the government open and the nation out of default. Now comes step 2: adopting a budget plan that would wipe out deficits entirely by 2023.

The strategy runs counter to warnings from prominent Republicans such as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal against becoming “the party of austerity.” Just as GOP lawmakers are tacitly endorsing sequester cuts to the Pentagon, long a sacred cow, they fear the balanced-budget goal will force them to abandon a campaign pledge not to reduce Medicare benefits for those who are now 55 and older.
“I know a number of people who have real concerns about where this is going,” said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who said Medicare cuts targeting people as old as 58 are under discussion.
“One of the last presidents to balance the budget was Herbert Hoover,” King added darkly, referring to the penny-pinching Republican blamed for deepening the Great Depression.

GOP leaders say the strategy has been necessary to persuade their right wing to postpone a fight over the debt ceiling until this summer and to [pass the] bill ...to fund the government through the end of September. The payoff, they say, will be a budget framework that holds the promise of paying down the national debt without higher taxes.

Alan Simpson points his finger at you and your sorry motives. (AP)

WASH. POST      HAROLD MEYERSON

To the let’s-cut-entitlements crowd, what’s wrong with America is that seniors are living too high off the hog. With the cost of medical care still rising (though not as fast as it used to), the government is shelling out many more dollars per geezer (DPG) than it is per youngster (DPY). The solution, we’re told, is to bring down DPG so we can boost DPY.
We do indeed need to boost DPY. And we need to rein in medical costs by shifting away from the fee-for-service model of billing and paying. But as for changing the way we calculate cost-of-living adjustments for seniors to keep us from overpaying them — an idea beloved of Bowles, Simpson, Republicans and, apparently, the White House — this may not be such a hot idea, for one simple reason: An increasing number of seniors can’t afford to retire.

Nearly one in five Americans age 65 and over — 18.5 percent — were working in 2012, and that percentage has been rising steadily for nearly 30 years. In 1985, only 10.8 percent of Americans 65 and older were still on the job, and in 1995, that figure was 12.1 percent.
Both good news and bad news have contributed to this increase. The good news is that more seniors both can and want to work than in years past, as health care and medical science have extended their capabilities, and as the share of Americans in desk jobs has increased while the number on the factory floor has shrunk. A 2011 survey by the Society of Actuaries reported that 55 percent of working seniors said they had stayed employed because they wanted to stay active and involved. But the same survey showed that 51 percent were working because they needed the money.

What advocates for reducing Social Security adjustments fail to consider is that corporate America’s shift away from defined-benefit pensions to defined-contribution 401(k) plans — or to no retirement plans at all — has diminished seniors’ non-Social Security income and made the very idea of retirement a far more risky prospect. Today, more than half of U.S. workers have no workplace retirement plan. Of those who do, just 35 percent still have defined-benefit pensions. In 1975, 88 percent of workers with workplace retirement plans had defined-benefit pensions.

The shift from traditional pensions to 401(k)s is one of the main reasons most seniors aren’t able to set aside enough income to guarantee a secure retirement. A 2010 survey by the Federal Reserve found that the median amount saved through 401(k)s by households approaching retirement was $100,000 — not nearly enough to support those households through retirement years, as seniors’ life expectancy increases. And as most Americans’ wages continue to stagnate or decline, their ability to direct more of their income to 401(k)s diminishes even more.
With the eclipse of the defined-benefit pension, Social Security assumes an even greater role in the well-being of American seniors. But advocates of entitlement cuts don’t even discuss the waning of other forms of retirement security: Listening to Alan Simpson, you’d never know that America’s elderly aren’t getting the monthly pension checks their parents got.

And it’s not as if those employers are suffering. Just as U.S. businesses have been able to raise the share of corporate profits to a half-century high by reducing the share of their workers’ wages to a half-century low, so, too, their ability to reduce pension payments has contributed not just to their profits but also to the $1.7 trillion in cash on which they are currently sitting.




So here’s a modest plan to enable seniors to retire when they wish, rather than having to work into their 70s and even beyond: Require employers to put a small percentage of their revenue, and a small percentage of their workers’ wages, into a private, portable, defined-benefit pension plan. To offset the increased costs, transfer the costs of paying for workers’ health care from employers and employees to the government, and pay for the increased costs to the government with the kind of value-added tax that most European nations levy. (The tax burden is higher in Europe, but because the level of benefits is higher as well, the tax has wide public support.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is VAT?

The Value Added Tax, or VAT, in the European Union is a general, broadly based consumption tax assessed on the value added to goods and services. It applies more or less to all goods and services that are bought and sold for use or consumption in the Community. Thus, goods which are sold for export or services which are sold to customers abroad are normally not subject to VAT. Conversely imports are taxed to keep the system fair for EU producers so that they can compete on equal terms on the European market with suppliers situated outside the Union .

Value added tax is

• a general tax that applies, in principle, to all commercial activities involving the production and distribution of goods and the provision of services.
• a consumption tax because it is borne ultimately by the final consumer. It is not a charge on businesses.
• charged as a percentage of price, which means that the actual tax burden is visible at each stage in the production and distribution chain.
• collected fractionally, via a system of partial payments whereby taxable persons (i.e., VAT-registered businesses) deduct from the VAT they have collected the amount of tax they have paid to other taxable persons on purchases for their business activities. This mechanism ensures that the tax is neutral regardless of how many transactions are involved.
• paid to the revenue authorities by the seller of the goods, who is the "taxable person", but it is actually paid by the buyer to the seller as part of the price. It is thus an indirect tax.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


The odds of such a plan being enacted today, of course, are nil. (Then again, the odds of any bill getting through Congress these days are close to nil.) But until we compensate for, or reverse, the abdication of corporate America from any major role in providing its workers with retirement security, we should lay off monkeying with Social Security to reduce the program’s future payments. As for all those cash-drenched chief executives who proclaim that we must cut entitlements, how about they make up the difference by restoring the pensions their companies slashed?

Read more from Harold Meyerson’s archive or follow him on Twitter.

SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE AND DEFICITS

Why doesn’t Obama appoint Krugman Secretary of the Treasury? And while he’s at it he should make Mr. Krugman his personal advisor. Here Mr Krugman expertly explains why raising the retirement age on Social Security and Medicare would be a harsh blow to Americans in the bottom half of the income distribution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/opinion/life-death-and-deficits.html?smid=tu-share

America’s political landscape is infested with many zombie ideas — beliefs about policy that have been repeatedly refuted with evidence and analysis but refuse to die. The most prominent zombie is the insistence that low taxes on rich people are the key to prosperity. But there are others.

And right now the most dangerous zombie is probably the claim that rising life expectancy justifies a rise in both the Social Security retirement age and the age of eligibility for Medicare. Even some Democrats — including, according to reports, the president — have seemed susceptible to this argument. But it’s a cruel, foolish idea — cruel in the case of Social Security, foolish in the case of Medicare — and we shouldn’t let it eat our brains.

First of all, you need to understand that while life expectancy at birth has gone up a lot, that’s not relevant to this issue; what matters is life expectancy for those at or near retirement age. When, to take one example, Alan Simpson — the co-chairman of President Obama’s deficit commission — declared that Social Security was “never intended as a retirement program” because life expectancy when it was founded was only 63, he was displaying his ignorance. Even in 1940, Americans who made it to age 65 generally had many years left.

 

Now, life expectancy at age 65 has risen, too. But the rise has been very uneven since the 1970s, with only the relatively affluent and well-educated seeing large gains. Bear in mind, too, that the full retirement age has already gone up to 66 and is scheduled to rise to 67 under current law.

 

This means that any further rise in the retirement age would be a harsh blow to Americans in the bottom half of the income distribution, who aren’t living much longer, and who, in many cases, have jobs requiring physical effort that’s difficult even for healthy seniors. And these are precisely the people who depend most on Social Security.

 

So any rise in the Social Security retirement age would, as I said, be cruel, hurting the most vulnerable Americans. And this cruelty would be gratuitous: While the United States does have a long-run budget problem, Social Security is not a major factor in that problem.

 

Medicare, on the other hand, is a big budget problem. But raising the eligibility age, which means forcing seniors to seek private insurance, is no way to deal with that problem.

It’s true that thanks to Obamacare, seniors should actually be able to get insurance even without Medicare. (Although, what happens if a number of states block the expansion of Medicaid that’s a crucial piece of the program?) But let’s be clear: Government insurance via Medicare is better and more cost-effective than private insurance.

 

You might ask why, in that case, health reform didn’t just extend Medicare to everyone, as opposed to setting up a system that continues to rely on private insurers. The answer, of course, is political realism. Given the power of the insurance industry, the Obama administration had to keep that industry in the loop. But the fact that Medicare for all may have been politically out of reach is no reason to push millions of Americans out of a good system into a worse one.

What would happen if we raised the Medicare eligibility age? The federal government would save only a small amount of money, because younger seniors are relatively healthy and hence low-cost. Meanwhile, however, those seniors would face sharply higher out-of-pocket costs. How could this trade-off be considered good policy?

 

The bottom line is that raising the age of eligibility for either Social Security benefits or Medicare would be destructive, making Americans’ lives worse without contributing in any significant way to deficit reduction. Democrats, in particular, who even consider either alternative need to ask themselves what on earth they think they’re doing.

 

But what, ask the deficit scolds, do people like me propose doing about rising spending? The answer is to do what every other advanced country does, and make a serious effort to rein in health care costs. Give Medicare the ability to bargain over drug prices. Let the Independent Payment Advisory Board, created as part of Obamacare to help Medicare control costs, do its job instead of crying “death panels.” (And isn’t it odd that the same people who demagogue attempts to help Medicare save money are eager to throw millions of people out of the program altogether?) We know that we have a health care system with skewed incentives and bloated costs, so why don’t we try to fix it?

 

What we know for sure is that there is no good case for denying older Americans access to the programs they count on. This should be a red line in any budget negotiations, and we can only hope that Mr. Obama doesn’t betray his supporters by crossing it.