Federal Budget & Tax

Federal Budget & Tax: News Blog Background

Thursday, January 27, 2005

President Bush has stated in the past that the United States could "take some lessons from Chile, particularly when it comes to how to run our pension plans." Chile's retirement insurance program has gotten attention lately because the reforms enacted in the country a little over twenty years ago share many similarities with reform plans being discussed by U.S. Republican leaders today.

The major similarity is that Chilean workers pay a percentage (roughly 10 percent) of their salaries into private investment accounts. This system was put in place with the thought that these accounts would spur economic growth as well as provide monthly pension benefits larger than what the traditional system could offer. Two major differences, however, include the fact that Chile's private pension system is not currently optional, and also, according to this article in the New York Times, the country "was careful before it started its private system to accumulate several years of budget surpluses." The U.S., unlike Chile, is considering a social security reform in the midst of multiple consecutive years of budget deficits.

The New York Times article provides a good description of how Chileans have fared under this system. As the first group of workers to depend on this system begin to retire, it is becoming evident that benefits are falling short of what was originally advertised when the program was put into place, and will unfortunately plunge many once-comfortable retirees into poverty. Not only that, but the Chilean government has had to continue diverting billions of dollars into a safety net for workers whose monthly contributions were not large enough to ensure a minimum pension. While the Chilean and U.S. economies and workforces are different and thus will benefit differently with private pension plans, it helps to look at the problems Chileans are experiencing with their private accounts if we are going to be considering enacting similar policies.

Posted by Becky Lewis, 04:34:48 PM

Thursday, January 20, 2005

Divisions in Social Security Reform Widen
The lack of a proposal from the White House on the President's specific plans for Social Security reform has continued to raise doubts and widen the divide of consensus on the proper way to approach this issues. In yesterday's Washington Post, House Ways and Mean Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA) was quoted as saying the President's plan would be a "dead horse" upon arrival in Congress and that it "cannot, given the politics of the [Congress]" win passage.

Representative Thomas is one of the most powerful Republicans concerning tax policy and will have a huge influence on the fate of Bush's domestic agenda in his second term - particularly Social Security reform.

Also recently released, a new analysis by Center for American Progress/The Century Foundation senior fellow Ruy Teixeira on recent polls concerning Social Security. It seems not only has Bush lost Congress, but he continues to be unable to sell the American public on his policies.

Posted by Adam Hughes, 01:55:44 PM

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Washington Post Series On Social Security

In an editorial yesterday, the Washington Post proclaimed that it plans to offer an occasional series of discussions on social security, in light of the recent onslaught of attention being devoted to the issue. The first article in the series can be read here.

In the series on social security, the Washington Post hopes to explore many questions, including the following: What is the role of Social Security in today's retirement system? What is the size of the shortfall? What are the alternatives for addressing it? What are the risks and potential benefits of private accounts? How have they worked in other countries? Check the Post in the upcoming weeks for in depth coverage on the subject.

Columnist Paul Krugman of the New York Times also continues to regularly discuss his feelings on social security reform in frequent op-eds. The latest can be read here.

Posted by Becky Lewis, 01:00:59 PM

Friday, January 14, 2005

Britain's Go At Pension Privatization

With all of this talk about social security, many analysts and politicians are looking to examples from abroad to either back their proposals or disprove others' proposals.

One particular case getting a lot of attention is Great Britain. In her American Prospect article, "A Bloody Mess," author Norma Cohen discusses Britian's go at pension privatization approximately twenty years ago. In fact, it appears that there are basic similarities between what Britain enacted, and what President Bush may propose in the very near future; that is, a cut in guarenteed benefits with the option for beneficiaries to make up for those cuts by earning high returns on private accounts.

Check out the article to see why there is now growing consensus in Britain that the privatization policy must be reversed. Paul Krugman also discusses the issue in a column today titled "The British Invasion."

Posted by Becky Lewis, 01:55:12 PM

Thursday, January 06, 2005

Insider Info on the Push for Social Security Reform

Reporters at the Wall Street Journal and CongressDaily have obtained a memo written by Peter Wehner -- a senior official in the Bush administration. Besides stating that social security reform would be "one of the most significant conservative governing achievements ever," the memo notes that not only is the creation of private accounts key to reform, but benefits cuts would be key as well. The latter point is not one that the President has publicly said would accompany any social security reforms, although this memo makes it clear that it is on the minds of many.

See this New York Times article to read about differing views on social security reform.

Click here to read the email mentioned above

Posted by Becky Lewis, 12:59:14 PM

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

Option 2 "Makes Sense" to Frist But Risks Cuts In Benefits

In 2001 Bush appointed a commission to look at social security, and this commission came up with three proposals. One of the proposals, called Option 2, is currently receiving a lot of attention on Capitol Hill, with Bill Frist recently stating that "[It's] on the table, and it makes sense to me." Option 2 would link future social security benefits to increases in inflation over a worker's lifetime, rather than wages.

One of the major problems with this proposal is that in our economy wages rise faster than inflation. According to this Washington Post article, the new benefits formula would "stunt the growth of benefits, slowly at first but more quickly by the middle of the century." While the proposal would work towards solving the problem of social security's long term deficit, the program does not show signs of reaching the level of "crisis" that many in the government are claiming. In fact, as Krugman points out in a New York Times column, if these proposals are put in place it "will do nothing about the real fiscal threat and will instead dismantle Social Security, a program that is in much better financial shape than the rest of the federal government."

These overhauls would also come with a stinging cost to future retirees. The average middle class worker retiring in 2022 would see a benefits cut of 9.9 percent, while in 2042 benefits would fall by more than a quarter. These cuts would be detrimental considering that over the past 60+ years the social security program has done more to stave off poverty than any other program.

In a recently released report, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorites highlighted the fact that other policies embraced by this administration will end up costing the country a lot more than the social security shortfall in the future, particularly the cost of Bush's tax cuts and Medicare prescription drug benefits. The report can be found here.

Posted by Becky Lewis, 10:33:34 AM

Monday, January 03, 2005

Senator Graham's Perspective On Social Security

Retiring Senator Bob Graham has a valid reason for being concerned about social security reform: One dollar out of every 14 dollars in benefits paid by the Social Security Administration goes to a resident of the state he has served for the past eighteen years -- Florida. In a recent article written by Senator Graham he outlines the necessity of a social security safety net, and discusses many of the problems that come with President Bush's ideas for reform, including added risk for people collecting benefits, the embellishment of the crisis facing the system, and the fact that "our grandchilden" could be paying for this overhaul further down the road.

To read the article, titled "Save Social Security From the White House," click here.

Posted by Becky Lewis, 06:15:26 PM

Latest Entries by Theme

All Themes

Appropriations & Spending

Federal Tax Policy

Income/Wealth Inequality

Budget Projections

Government Performance