House Minority Leader John Boehner had some interesting things to say about Social Security at an interview yesterday with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
From the article:
I think Boehner raises a legitimate question in terms of whether the retirement age needs to increased. However, does Boehner really think this the rationale he offered - we need more money to fight an unpopular war - is one that is going to help his cause or hurt it?
Sadly, this happens ALL the time with the GOP. They have a reality they want to address, but then they tie it to something that's ridiculously unpopular. So we get messages like "we need to cut spending so that we can preserve tax cuts for rich people," or "we need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil while making it easier for foreigners to drill for oil off our shores." The first half of the sentence is right on target, and the second half leaves everyone slapping their foreheads.
Also interesting is that Boehner is effectively conceding what any pragmatist recognized long ago - that the only way we're saving Social Security in any meaningful way is to acknowledge that it's a social insurance program and not a government-run savings account. We need to look at changes to retirement age and investment options, to be sure. But as part of any fix, we also need to consider subjecting more income (including, for some high-end earners, passive income) to the Social Security tax and we also need to considering phasing the benefit out at a certain level of earnings.
From the article:
Boehner had praise, however, for Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan and stepped-up drone attacks in Pakistan. He declined to list any benchmarks he has for measuring progress in the nine-year war, at a time of increasing violence and Obama's replacement of Gen. Stanley McChrystal with Gen. David Petraeus.
Ensuring there's enough money to pay for the war will require reforming the country's entitlement system, Boehner said. He said he'd favor increasing the Social Security retirement age to 70 for people who have at least 20 years until retirement, tying cost-of-living increases to the consumer price index rather than wage inflation and limiting payments to those who need them.
"We need to look at the American people and explain to them that we're broke," Boehner said. "If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you're retired, why are we paying you at a time when we're broke? We just need to be honest with people."
I think Boehner raises a legitimate question in terms of whether the retirement age needs to increased. However, does Boehner really think this the rationale he offered - we need more money to fight an unpopular war - is one that is going to help his cause or hurt it?
Sadly, this happens ALL the time with the GOP. They have a reality they want to address, but then they tie it to something that's ridiculously unpopular. So we get messages like "we need to cut spending so that we can preserve tax cuts for rich people," or "we need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil while making it easier for foreigners to drill for oil off our shores." The first half of the sentence is right on target, and the second half leaves everyone slapping their foreheads.
Also interesting is that Boehner is effectively conceding what any pragmatist recognized long ago - that the only way we're saving Social Security in any meaningful way is to acknowledge that it's a social insurance program and not a government-run savings account. We need to look at changes to retirement age and investment options, to be sure. But as part of any fix, we also need to consider subjecting more income (including, for some high-end earners, passive income) to the Social Security tax and we also need to considering phasing the benefit out at a certain level of earnings.
No comments:
Post a Comment