Reform Entitlements But Don't Cut Benefits? Come Again?
I'm a bit discouraged by this Pew poll showing widespread agreement that Social Security and Medicare need reforming for the sake of the deficit but also widespread agreement that benefits shouldn't be cut.
This is why entitlement programs, once enacted, can live on until they wreak havoc. There is a divide among Republicans and Democrats here, it's worth noting.
Americans were asked which they thought was more important, reducing the budget deficit or keeping Social Security/Medicare benefits as they are. Forty-four percent of Republicans chose reducing the budget deficit while 47 percent chose keeping benefits the same.
Among Democrats, however, only 23 percent chose reducing the budget deficit compared to 71 percent who chose keeping benefits the same.
Still, these are discouraging numbers for both parties, aren't they? What will it take to get the public in support of significant reform?
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Reform Entitlements But Don't Cut Benefits? Come Again?
Someone may very well see the need to reform Social Security but doesn't want to see cuts in the amount per month that retirees get. You could leave the benefits the same and not increase Social Security tax, but increase the age of eligibility. I don't want to see my wife's 72-year old parents get their benefits cut but I think that people who are in their forties and will likely live into their eighties or nineties should not be able to get full Social Security benefits at the nearly the same age as when the average American lifespan was 64. We're going to see a time when an incredible number of people are going to live to 100. We have to index the retirement age to the average lifespan of one's generation if we want to save Social Security.
May '11
Re: Reform Entitlements But Don't Cut Benefits? Come Again?
Benefits will certainly be cut when the programs collapse of their own fiscal weight, but they shouldn't have to be cut per se. Real instituional reform could alter the process such that both programs are financially solvent and self sustaining through market based incentives. Conservatives need to argue that we are not going to cut benefits ever. We are going to restore a pay as you go process to all government policy.
Jun '11
Re: Reform Entitlements But Don't Cut Benefits? Come Again?
Simple...generational awarenes and generational change. Most Baby-Boomers have spent their working adult years paying into a system which promised benefits to them. In other words they want a return on their "investment." As a person who is considerably younger than them, I have be resigned to the fact that Social Security and other entitlements I might have received, either won't be there or will be severely parsed down. This is why I think that over the past 10-15 years we have had 401 k's, IRA's, etc. incentivized and then had it crammed into our grey matter, be prepared for retirement, you can only count on yourself.
Fruthermore, I think you might see a different attitude when today's 40-30 year olds dominate the electorate and political landscapes. Since most already feel the safety net has holes in it, trying to fix it may not be that big of a deal to them in the future. Of course this is just my opinion, not fact. BTW, good topic.
May '10
Re: Reform Entitlements But Don't Cut Benefits? Come Again?
Only when we are staring into the Grecian abyss will these numbers change...and then it will be like pulling teeth. Look at the support in the media for Van Jones' nonsense...
Feb '11
Re: Reform Entitlements But Don't Cut Benefits? Come Again?
The way to cut entitlements and not decrease benefits is to increase the age at which the benefits are received -- exactly the solution I would propose.
Jan '11
Re: Reform Entitlements But Don't Cut Benefits? Come Again?
Total disconnect! It's as though most people are saying, "Yeah, I do understand that this has put our country on the path to financial ruin and yes I understand that future generations will be burdened with greater debt for the promises that were made. So, make changes but leave things exactly the way that they are right now, please."
May '11
Re: Reform Entitlements But Don't Cut Benefits? Come Again?
There was a link on the Drudge Report yesterday to a scientist who has stated that the first person to live to 150 may have already been born. If true, that will make the problem rather diificult, will it not?
Jan '11
Re: Reform Entitlements But Don't Cut Benefits? Come Again?
Nearly everyone with a statist bent to them [yes, they are on the Right, too] will use demagoguery and insist that this is a cut to benefits.
Edited on July 7, 2011 at 6:13pmMar '11
Re: Reform Entitlements But Don't Cut Benefits? Come Again?
Things like this are what make me pessimistic about reforming entitlements. The problem isn't our politicians. They're secondary. The problem is us. We The People are spoiled and think the world owes us a living... or at least that the government does. We make all the right noises about work ethic and responsibility and limited government, but when it comes right down to it, most of the population wants an existence subsidized on someone else's dime. Our national mantra is "Don't Touch Mine". Cut that other guys' benefits, but don't you dare touch one cent of any benefit check or tax benefits that I get. Yes, we know there's a huge debt, but it doesn't matter. See that rich guy over there? Take his. He probably stole it anyway. Never mind that most of them bust their rears to build their businesses (that employ a lot of people, as well) and that they earned that money. Doesn't matter. Don't. Touch. Mine.
Sep '10
Re: Reform Entitlements But Don't Cut Benefits? Come Again?
I advocate an 80 year old eligibility age for old age benefites. If you can make it to 80, fine, we'll pay your bills, I guess. If you want to sit around and watch Judge Judy and play bingo between the ages of 65 and 80, you can pay for it yourself.
If you need welfare, whether you are 18, 48, or 68, you can sign up at the same welfare office.
Jan '11
Re: Reform Entitlements But Don't Cut Benefits? Come Again?
Mark Belling Fan
I advocate an 80 year old eligibility age for old age benefites. If you can make it to 80, fine, we'll pay your bills, I guess. If you want to sit around and watch Judge Judy and play bingo between the ages of 65 and 80, you can pay for it yourself.
If you need welfare, whether you are 18, 48, or 68, you can sign up at the same welfare office. · Jul 7 at 9:14am
That could work. Seriously, it could. if you wanted an earlier retirement, contribute to an annuity that will pay for you until you reach age 80. Something tells me, though, that even if this age were adopted, Social Security would still be facing a funding shortfall. I wonder if it truly would be enough of an age increase for eligibility.
Mar '11
Re: Reform Entitlements But Don't Cut Benefits? Come Again?
Let's put aside whether or not we can wrap our heads around the undeniable contradiction here and think a bit more strategically about this.
That is: what does this poll forebode for 2012?
Jan '11
Re: Reform Entitlements But Don't Cut Benefits? Come Again?
I was born well prior to 1956; 55 being the current proposed grandfather age for current benefits. I write here that I am willing to agree to some sort of reduction in my 'expected' benefits in a larger effort to make the system (SSI & Medicare) sustainable.
I think what I write here is a lie. I called both my senators when I didn't get my FREE podcasts a few weeks ago.
Oh by the way; please wait until I die before you steal my IRA and other assets.