CE Week #6: “Thompson sees benefit limit”
Candidate outlines plan to slow growth of Social Security
|
Margaret Talev
McClatchy
October 6, 2007
WASHINGTON – Former Sen. Fred Thompson promised fiscal conservatives Friday that he’d trim the cost of government by slowing the growth of Social Security benefits.
Stepping squarely onto an issue long known as “the third rail of politics,” the Republican presidential candidate said, almost in passing, that changing the formula that adjusts Social Security benefits to keep pace with the cost of living would keep the program solvent over the long term.
While he wasn’t specific, numerous academic studies have concluded that the only way such a plan could work is if it slashes future Social Security benefits by one-fourth to one-half below what’s promised under current law.
“We could have the same level of Social Security benefits, for example, and adjust the cost of living increases to cover inflation,” Thompson told the Americans for Prosperity Foundation convention, and that “would solve the problem for probably 75 years.”
Thompson has been slowly rolling out his Social Security idea. He told the Des Moines Register’s editorial board this week that he supports the idea of indexing the growth of Social Security benefits to goods rather than to wages. Wages tends to increase at a higher rate than do the prices of goods.
Thompson spokeswoman Karen Hanretty said the candidate hasn’t settled on details for how his formula adjustment would work.
However, President Bush’s 2001 Social Security Commission offered such a proposal. Under it, a worker born in 1977 who earned average wages and retired at age 65 would get Social Security benefits 27 percent lower than under the current benefit structure – $14,432 a year instead of $19,423, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank.
There are many variations of possible “price-based” cost-of-living-indexes, but the only one that would eliminate Social Security’s solvency problem for 75 years by itself would require benefits to be cut by more than 50 percent by 2075, according to a 2005 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Whatever formula Thompson settles on will likely be a difficult sell to a Democratic-controlled Congress and to the public. David Certner, legislative policy director for the AARP, formerly the American Association of Retired Persons, said the effect of shifting to a price-based benefit system starts small but compounds over time.
“It affects younger workers more than older workers,” he said. “I’m sure it appeals to certain sectors of the (Republican) base. But people generally don’t support cuts in Social Security.”
Thompson also vowed to extend Bush’s tax cuts and to cap corporate tax rates at 28 percent.
“I’ve got this complex economic policy: Let’s keep doing the things that work and quit doing the things that don’t work,” he said.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/10/06/ce-week-6-thompson-sees-benefit-limit/trackback/
Make Up…
Fred Thompson. Does anyone think it’s funny that another TV actor is running for a government position, this time the position just happens to be president, and Fred Thompson an actor who plays a lawyer is the runner? I think it’s hilarious, why all of the sudden actors want to get involved politically? Anyways, this article talks about Thompson’s social security plan. I personally don’t like his plan already because its thinking to much in the near future, in 2075 I will be 85, and I will be wanting to draw social security way before that, so why should I vote for him if he is not going to do anything for me, or for people around my age, I just don’t get. He is thinking way to far in the future. Not only that when people do start pulling out social security in 2075 they will be getting only half of what people are getting now. We need a candidate that can figure out a way to make social security the same, just sooner, how we could do this. I personally think we should tax the rich way more because we all know the have a lot of money and just more taxes for the rich really won’t hurt them. Anyway this was a good article to read, it gave me some insight about Fred Thompson.
Well Thompson will undoubtedly gain the support of conservatives because of his economic stance. If he devises a precise plan for cutting social security benefits he will win even more support. No one expects anything out of him. I think his stance on this issue and taxes will definitely make people start to seriously consider Thompson as a competitive runner for the republican nomination. However, any republican or moderate that is slightly liberal will be very disapointed in Thompson. Cutting social security benefits, and decreasing taxes is the last thing liberals want. Small businesses will definitely show support for Thompson just because he wants to lower taxes. He just gained the support of another group! His stance on this goes to his benefit in somes ways, most importantly it will go to the benefit of his conservative supporters. Overall, this is going to help Thompson. Personally this will make me more apt to support Thompson. I love his strong stance on cutting social security benefits and cutting taxes. He’s showing some true conservative ideologies, which is something that most republicans are looking for. They do not want another Bush!
Re: Cody
I’m not really sure, but I think you are trying to say that you want the President to fix social security without doing anything about the problem. You don’t want to cut benefits when the problem is that the benefits are too great. Stop dreaming about this out of reach miracle you speak of and realize that if we don’t do something soon, you won’t be getting one dime back in social security benefits. Now how does that very real scenario match up with your accusation that social security does not affect you and me at all? Well it doesn’t, and I have no idea why you said that Fred Thompson isn’t trying to do anything for you or for people our age. The whole point is actually to make it so social security is around by the time our generation retires because at this rate it won’t be. I recall you saying that you want to be drawing social security way before the age of 85. Cody, you are asking for two things that truthfully cannot exist simultaneously. And I hate it when people say we should tax the rich more because we already do that. This way of thinking is what will lead to the wealthy funding social security on their own, and that is the stupidest thing that could have just now crossed my mind.
I’m interested to find out if Fred Thompson is the only one of the candidates that wants to reform social security. Regardless, I am pleased to see that at least one of them has thought about it. It is extremely gutsy of him to make this touchy subject a part of his campaign. This may be too much to ask for, but I still wish that more candidates would take daring stances such as this one because then we would truly know who we are voting for come election day. Too many candidates beat around the bush when they are asked questions. Sometimes after this happens, I am more confused than I ever was to begin with about their stance on the issue. Fred Thompson doesn’t seem too clear about what he wants to do, but at least he wants to do something. The way social security is looking right now, I don’t think we really have anything to lose except for maybe some of the jolly old folk. I really don’t feel like contributing to this worthless cause my whole life and then never get to receive the benefits for it. It angers me to see how difficult it is to get the attention of the politicians on this issue. The old people elect them, so of course the politicians never talk of cutting their benefits. The elderly need to stop being so ridiculously selfish and realize just how bad they are screwing over their children and grand children.
As you know social security is a touch subject, but is becoming a major problem. We are running out of it. They say in 30 years that there will be two workers for every person over the age of 65. Today we have about ten workers per 65 year old. Social Security is a toughie subject because the elderly as we call them are the majority voters and they don’t want to see their money go away. They need to understand that we are trying to manage it so that there will be some left for future generations.
Instead of bring this up as an issue though they could raise the federal tax by a half a percent and still be ok to support the future generations. 200 million people paying a half a percent for 1 dollar is still 100 million dollars. That sounds good to me. I mean I wan to be able to have money when I get old. I don’t think its suck a bad idea to have private social security because I think over time it will cost less when companies stocks go up. Also if we quit using the reserve money to pay debts it wouldn’t be such a problem.
Well I can deffinitly give Fredd Tompson credit. Because now one likes to dance on the third rail of polotics because it can so easily toss you on your but. This is especially true when you talk about cutting back benifits or spending less money. Candidates will usualy try to just stay away from that issue so the gray power doesn’t turn on them. But if they do decide to talk about that issue they will usualy talk about increasing the plan over all but not enought to were they are deeply politically commited. Like the article mention he will have a tuff time gaining the support of the Democrats on this one. But I do agree that there need to be a change in social security. As a matter of fact I think that there needs to be a huge change in social security because at this rate are system is bound to fail some time soon. But no candidate will touch the topic enought. Fredd Tompson is probably doing the best job of it and I still don’t think that he is even comming close to all the things that need to be fixed. I agree with the idea that S.S. should increase with the cost of good because the cost of goods goes up slower and more steady. Minimum wages jumpes like .50 a year I swear. Everybody gets happy about that but its actually bad for our economy.