As the so-called Cat Food Commission moves toward recommendations to cut Social Security, Republicans and some DINOs are using misleading statistics to support raising the retirement age.
Earlier this week, Ezra Klein voiced a strong argument against raising the age for receiving Social Security benefits to 70:
I’m not surprised to hear there’s energy behind pushing the retirement age at which you get full Social Security benefits back to 70. It’s been in the discussion for a long time, people have grown comfortable talking about the idea, and perhaps most importantly, it seems like a no-brainer to pundits and politicians who would happily pay you to keep working to age 70, and in fact beyond.
But I’ve never liked it. The customary justification is that when Social Security was created, people died younger, and so it was never meant to stretch this far in the first place. But that argument works in the other direction, too: Our country has become far richer than the architects of Social Security could have possibly imagined. It would make perfect sense for us to give ourselves more leisure time, if we chose to take it, at the end of our lives.
This is a strong and civilized argument that carries a lot of weight, and one with which I think most progressives can heartily agree. However, there is a stronger argument, not based on an appealing philosophy but on solid statistics, that is getting very, very short shrift in this debate, and it’s laid out best by Nancy Altman in her excellent (and highly recommended) history of Social Security, The Battle for Social Security: From FDR’s Vision To Bush’s Gamble:
Related to issues about retirement age are questions about life expectancy. Many people are under the mistaken impression that Americans receive retirement benefits for considerably longer than they did when the program was created. The misconception results from looking at life expectancies from birth, which have changed dramatically because of the medical success achieved in conquering childhood diseases. But those numbers reflect changes in the numbers of those who survive to retirement, not what happens thereafter. The statistics regarding children distort the overall average ….
For Social Security purposes, the correct question is not how many live to age 65, but rather how long those reaching age 65 live thereafter. Here the numbers are not as dramatic. In 1940, men who survived to age 65 had a remaining life expectancy of 12.7 years. Today, a 65 year old man can expect to live not quite three years longer than he might have in 1940, or 15.3 years beyond reaching age 65. For women, the comparable numbers are 14.7 years beyond age 65 in 1940; 19.6 years in 1990. [Emphasis added.]
Clearly, despite the common misconception that we’re all living a dozen or so years longer than the 65-year-old retiree did 70 years ago, it’s just not true. Andrew Sullivan fell into this common trap too this past week when he wrote, "But the retirement age has in no way caught up with life expectancy in America." The fact is, men are living less than three years longer, women about five. Yes, there are more people living longer because they didn’t die at age 3 of whooping cough or polio, but the life expectancy for an individual has not been extended very much at all once age 65 is reached. Disturbingly, pushing the retirement age out five years as is currently proposed actually means an individual male retiree today is at risk of being cheated of two years more retirement than our supposedly drastically shorter-lived forebears received more than half a century ago… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Daily Kos>
In the interest of full disclosure, as a current social security recipient, have no dog in this hunt. My benefits will not be changed. That said, the reason that Republicans want do deprive future retirees of the benefits for which they will have paid their entire working lives is simple. Every penny returned to a deserving retires worker is a penny the Republicans cannot give to a millionaire. That is why they are misleading us. What they fear most is the implementation of the only rational solution. Currently, the rich pay no withholdings in income over $106,800 per year. Eliminate the cap.
8 Responses to “Social Security: Cutting Through the BS”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Yes and the black hearted Right once again want the most needful among us to suffer. Sounds like Death Panels to me. I’d like to see the age of benefits lowered. People in those years of say over 55 to 65 are the forgotten. The throw away. If you don’t have insurance already, you can’t get it. Perhaps in the in Health reform that might be covered, I don’t know. I do know if your 50 and older you can’t get a job. Your the first to go when a company downsizes. That’s because it’s cheaper to get the younger ones in.
Let me tell you something else, people on Social Security are certainly not living the good life. There scrimping each month to get by. Many buy their clothes at second hand stores. They certainly don’t eat as they should. The worth of a Country is how they take care of the ones who need most. The republicans have to stop bitching about welfare, health care, and social security. They been trying to kill all those things for years. How about we stop going to War.. I bet that would save some money. We have no trouble finding money for that. Also how about we leave the funding for social security alone. Even today we raid the funds.
Maybe it’s time we get pissed.
Tim, I don’t think lowering the social security age is the answer either. The plight of the 50+ is a symptom of a GW bushwhacked economy. We need to restore the economy to the point where workers are in demand. One way is to stimulate manufacturing here, instead of paying corporations to export jobs with taxpayer money like Bush and the GOP did.
You don’t have to tell me about the hardships of living on social security. So called entitlements are a drop in the bucket compared to the flood of annual spending on corporate welfare, especially through defense spending.
SS retirement age is already being pushed out. I am 65. I do not get my full SS retirement until I reach 66.
Jerry, from what I understand the new fixes likely to be proposed will not effect people over 55. What boggles my mind is that, with so many people out of work, the right wants to increase the size of the labor force.
Bigger the labor force, the lower the wage — the republican economic plan.
Jerry, you’re dead bang on.
I just love that the righties are trying to use the shrink the deficit argument after driving the deficit and debt up with unwarranted wars.
Shrink the Pentagon budget for that.
The only savings through the SSI/Medicare/Medicaid programs should be to make sure it is run fairly and efficiently. The way to ensure social security is to raise the wage limit for withholding. C’mon, a raise to even $200K would keep the system going forever.
Marva, I agree, but would suggest $250K at least.