Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Information & Access

Nonprofit Advocacy

Regulatory Policy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo

Demanding a federal budget that is fair, responsible, and meets our nation's priorities

Home :  Federal Budget & Tax : 
Federal Budget & Tax:      News     Blog     Background    



Thursday, June 02, 2005

Could Progressive Price Indexing Close the Shortfall?

The CBO report on Social Security reform options released last week mentions that the progressive indexing of benefits could completely eliminate the 75-year Social Security shortfall. This projection is even more favorable than the numbers which are being used by the White House in support of the plan. The progressive price indexing plan would index the benefits of the top 30 percent of wages earners by price growth rather than wage growth, index the benefits of the middle 40 percent of wage earners by a combination of wage and price indexing, and index the bottom 30 percent by their current wage-indexing.

One problem however is that CBO's estimates differ from those of the Social Security Actuary, which claims, based on different economic assumptions, that solvency would not be achieved within 75 years. Instead, they claim that even with this plan, the shortfall would only be reduced by 70 percent. (Repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, on the other hand, would more than make up for the Social Security shortfall -- see this report).

And the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has recently reported that the SSA's claim that progressive price indexing could shore up 70 percent of the Social Security shortfall, is false. The Pozen progressive price indexing plan calls for reductions in disability and survivorship benefits, which the President has not claimed to support. Their report states, "About one-sixth of the improvement in solvency under the Pozen proposal comes from reductions in disability benefits... A similar amount of the solvency improvement under the Pozen plan is the result of reductions in benefits for survivors." Since the President does not support this, the actual amount of the shortfall which would be closed, the CBPP estimates, would be closer to 59 percent.



Posted by Becky Lewis



Entries by Theme

All Themes

Appropriations & Spending

Federal Tax Policy

Income/Wealth Inequality

Budget Projections

Government Performance

Estate Tax

State Fiscal Policy

Watcher

Entitlements

Budget Process

Debt & Deficit

Oversight & Enforcement

Transparency

Privatization

Contact Us

Most Recent Entries for Federal Budget & Tax

Transparency Act Legacy Spreads to the States

Talk of a Lame Duck Session

Bush Admin Helps Out Big Beef

Bush Admin Takes Aim at Unionization

CBPP: Taxes on the Rich Don't Hurt Small Businesses

A Swing and a Miss on Tax Evasion

Forthcoming: EPI's The State of Working America, 2008/2009

The Executive Pay Pie: Extra Large Slices and Topped with Tax Subsidies

A Bridge for Sale: Contracting Problems Continue

Notes from the Economy: GDP, Jobless Claims

Archived Entries for Entitlements

September

August

July

June

May

April

March

February

January

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

June, 2007

May, 2007

April, 2007

March, 2007

February, 2007

January, 2007

December, 2006

November, 2006

October, 2006

August, 2006

June, 2006

February, 2006

November, 2005

October, 2005

September, 2005

August, 2005

July, 2005

June, 2005

May, 2005

April, 2005

March, 2005

February, 2005

January, 2005

December, 2004

November, 2004

August, 2003