Recently I wrote about some conservatives who think Republicans should talk less about entitlement reform. Too gloomy. Too much “root canal” politics. But at least when it comes to Social Security reform, there is a path other than cut, cut, cut. It would make the program fiscally sustainable, create a reliable anti-poverty safety net in retirement, and encourage more Americans to save for retirement. AEI’s Andrew Biggs in National Review:

Beginning immediately, Social Security would pay every long-term U.S. resident a minimum benefit pegged at the poverty threshold of $950 a month, regardless of the retiree’s work history or earnings. This minimum benefit would take the place of both the redistributive aspects of Social Security and the Supplemental Security Income program, but do so with greater protections against poverty and no prohibition on work and saving. In fact, the Social Security payroll tax would be eliminated at age 62 to encourage longer work lives. But over several decades, the maximum Social Security benefit would be scaled down so that eventually every retiree will receive the same flat dollar benefit from the government.

For the bottom third of retirees, benefits would increase, but for middle and upper income Americans, benefits would decline relative to currently promised levels. This makes sense. At any given time, higher-income Americans are less dependent upon government than lower-income households. As incomes rise over time, Americans should gradually become less dependent on the government for income in retirement and more able to build their own savings.