Paul Krugman: Republicans Against Retirement

[Deleted]

What do you think about this? Both his argument about the 1% and his idea that the Republican candidates are sort of coalescing against an expansion of Social Security. With people living much longer than in the past, is it wrong to expect that they should work longer than 63-65 before drawing SS benefits?

*****

Something strange is happening in the Republican primary — something strange, that is, besides the Trump phenomenon. For some reason, just about all the leading candidates other than The Donald have taken a deeply unpopular position, a known political loser, on a major domestic policy issue. And it’s interesting to ask why.

The issue in question is the future of Social Security, which turned 80 last week. The retirement program is, of course, both extremely popular and a long-term target of conservatives, who want to kill it precisely because its popularity helps legitimize government action in general. As the right-wing activist Stephen Moore (now chief economist of the Heritage Foundation) once declared, Social Security is “the soft underbelly of the welfare state”; “jab your spear through that” and you can undermine the whole thing.
 
But that was a decade ago, during former President George W. Bush’s attempt to privatize the program — and what Mr. Bush learned was that the underbelly wasn’t that soft after all. Despite the political momentum coming from the G.O.P.’s victory in the 2004 election, despite support from much of the media establishment, the assault on Social Security quickly crashed and burned. Voters, it turns out, like Social Security as it is, and don’t want it cut.

It’s remarkable, then, that most of the Republicans who would be president seem to be lining up for another round of punishment. In particular, they’ve been declaring that the retirement age — which has already been pushed up from 65 to 66, and is scheduled to rise to 67 — should go up even further.

Thus, Jeb Bush says that the retirement age should be pushed back to “68 or 70”. Scott Walker has echoed that position. Marco Rubio wants both to raise the retirement age and to cut benefits for higher-income seniors. Rand Paul wants to raise the retirement age to 70 and means-test benefits. Ted Cruz wants to revive the Bush privatization plan.

For the record, these proposals would be really bad public policy — a harsh blow to Americans in the bottom half of the income distribution, who depend on Social Security, often have jobs that involve manual labor, and have not, in fact, seen a big rise in life expectancy. Meanwhile, the decline of private pensions has left working Americans more reliant on Social Security than ever.

And no, Social Security does not face a financial crisis; its long-term funding shortfall could easily be closed with modest increases in revenue.

Still, nobody should be surprised at the spectacle of politicians enthusiastically endorsing destructive policies. What’s puzzling about the renewed Republican assault on Social Security is that it looks like bad politics as well as bad policy. Americans love Social Security, so why aren’t the candidates at least pretending to share that sentiment?

The answer, I’d suggest, is that it’s all about the big money.

Wealthy individuals have long played a disproportionate role in politics, but we’ve never seen anything like what’s happening now: domination of campaign finance, especially on the Republican side, by a tiny group of immensely wealthy donors. Indeed, more than half the funds raised by Republican candidates through June came from just 130 families.

And while most Americans love Social Security, the wealthy don’t. Two years ago a pioneering study of the policy preferences of the very wealthy found many contrasts with the views of the general public; as you might expect, the rich are politically different from you and me. But nowhere are they as different as they are on the matter of Social Security. By a very wide margin, ordinary Americans want to see Social Security expanded. But by an even wider margin, Americans in the top 1 percent want to see it cut. And guess whose preferences are prevailing among Republican candidates.

You often see political analyses pointing out, rightly, that voting in actual primaries is preceded by an “invisible primary” in which candidates compete for the support of crucial elites. But who are these elites? In the past, it might have been members of the political establishment and other opinion leaders. But what the new attack on Social Security tells us is that the rules have changed. Nowadays, at least on the Republican side, the invisible primary has been reduced to a stark competition for the affections and, of course, the money of a few dozen plutocrats.

What this means, in turn, is that the eventual Republican nominee — assuming that it’s not Mr. Trump —will be committed not just to a renewed attack on Social Security but to a broader plutocratic agenda. Whatever the rhetoric, the GOP is on track to nominate someone who has won over the big money by promising government by the 1 percent, for the 1 percent.

[StrawberryBlondie]

I support means testing, but I'm concerned that raising the age would be detrimental to those working in manual labor type jobs. For example, my dad is 65. He's retiring this year. Largely because he literally can't handle his hours or the long hours on his feet. If he worked in an office, yeah, he could probably stick it out longer, but he's a baker.

FWIW, I have no idea how he plans to finance his retirement and don't think it's any business of mine.

[tres3]

I think you can extend the age out to full benefits, but there are a lot of people who need to retire at 60 or 62 because their jobs are physically demanding. I can't imagine being an ER nurse at 60 or a mason at 60.

[Deleted]

It's not wrong if you're healthy.

My dad retired at 56 because he had a massive stroke and couldn't work any more.

My FIL retired at 65 because he wanted to. He's needed a some breaks for a couple of surgery but could easily keep working.

[karinothing]

I think disability would fill the gap for some people with physically demanding jobs. It basically does this now (obviously not everyone qualifies).

[aurora]

...And while most Americans love Social Security, the wealthy don’t. Two years ago a pioneering study of the policy preferences of the very wealthy found many contrasts with the views of the general public; as you might expect, the rich are politically different from you and me. But nowhere are they as different as they are on the matter of Social Security. By a very wide margin, ordinary Americans want to see Social Security expanded. But by an even wider margin, Americans in the top 1 percent want to see it cut. And guess whose preferences are prevailing among Republican candidates...

I wonder why this is. Just as a means to reduce the size of government? Some sort of bootstraps thing?

[kadams767]

Aug 18, 2015 19:06:50 GMT -5 aurora said:

...And while most Americans love Social Security, the wealthy don’t. Two years ago a pioneering study of the policy preferences of the very wealthy found many contrasts with the views of the general public; as you might expect, the rich are politically different from you and me. But nowhere are they as different as they are on the matter of Social Security. By a very wide margin, ordinary Americans want to see Social Security expanded. But by an even wider margin, Americans in the top 1 percent want to see it cut. And guess whose preferences are prevailing among Republican candidates...

I wonder why this is. Just as a means to reduce the size of government? Some sort of bootstraps thing?

Because the 1% can pay for their own retirement 100 times over and don't give a shit about other people? Because they don't want to pay into SS up to their first $118,000 of income every year? Because they see it the same way they see food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, and other support programs? I think it's mostly a bootstraps/asshole thing, but I'm sure the whole "smaller government" idea is part of it too, they don't think that retirement support is a government obligation and it can be done better privatized.

[LoveTrains]

I do not support means testing. Once those at the top no longer use it they will find a way to eliminate it.

I agree with Krugman that raising the retirement age is an issue for many workers in fields such as the service industry, labor, etc. sure I can sit at a desk until 70 but it's not realistic for everyone.