Yesterday, Zeke Emanuel advanced an interesting proposal for Social Security and Medicare in a blog at The New York Times: varying the retirement ages for lifetime earnings. This policy is a response to a common criticism of raising the retirement ages that increases in life expectancy over time have been uneven across income groups. Emanuel's idea would work as follows:
Last month, Social Security and Medicare Trustee Chuck Blahous sparked a controversy by saying that the Affordable Care Act would add to the deficit, arguing that the law was double counting savings from Medicare Part A because Part A is already restrained by a trust fund that is scheduled to expire this decade. Thus, the Medicare savings from the law would only be used to extend the life of the trust fund.
Last week’s report from the Social Security Trustees laid out the challenges facing the vital program. The largest federal program began running annual deficits in 2010 and will continue to do so each year through 2033, when the trust fund is projected to become exhausted. At that point, recipients will see a 25% cut in benefits, absent any action.
CRFB's Senior Policy Director Marc Goldwein has a message to policymakers in an op-ed in The Hill: don't overlook the disability insurance (DI) program. The latest Trustees report projecting the DI trust fund to run out in only four years, but people often overlook that deadline, since they assume money would be transferred from the old age portion of the program.
A new article from Jeffrey Brown of Forbes succinctly captures much of the debate around the findings of the Social Security Trustees report. In many ways, the debate surrounding Social Security boils down to whether you view it as a stand-alone program or one that is part of the overall federal budget.
The Social Security and Medicare Trustees have signed off on their respective reports on the financial projections for the two programs, though we continue to wait for the Social Security report to be posted reports online.