Cutting Social Security benefits is a cruel, stupid policy
This headline is a quote from the Paul Krugman post The Deal Dilemma.
Switching from the regular CPI to the chained CPI doesn’t affect benefits immediately after retirement, which are based on your past earnings.What it does mean is that after retirement your payments grow more slowly, about 0.3 percent each year. So if you retire at 65, your income at 75 would be 3 percent less under this proposal than under current law; at 85 it would be 6 percent less; there’s supposedly a bump-up in benefits for people who make it that far.
This is not good; there’s no good policy reason to be doing this, because the savings won’t have any significant impact on the underlying budget issues. And for many older people it would hurt. Also, the symbolism of a Democratic president cutting Social Security is pretty awful.
I have already called my representative Richard Neal, to tell him that I hope he publicly opposes this cut to Social Security. His staff person who answered told me that Neal does not consider this to be a cut. I told him that I did. From what I have heard, seniors have a faster rising cost of living than other citizens. As Krugman says, it would be “cruel , stupid policy” to change their formula for cost of living raises to be less than the general population.
I told Congressman Neal’s office that I would prefer that he take us over the cliff than accept this compromise. The country can get a better deal from the next Congress. Though the gist of the Krugman article is that he is not so sure which deal would be better.