PDA

View Full Version : The "King" Urges Social Security Cuts


adios
02-25-2004, 05:24 PM
I think Alan Greenspan has done a remarkably good job as Fed chairman. Many people refer to him as the "king" due to his vast influence and outright power. Even though GHW Bush more or less said Greenspan cost him the 92 election Dubya has more or less endorsed Greenspan and his policies. Greenspan came out yesterday and assailed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as potential disasters for the US economy which was a bold statement and one that I take note of at least. Earlier in the week Greenspan was testifying about mortgages and how he felt mortgage borrowers were not served well with 30 year fixed mortgages. He didn't come right out and advocate adjustable rate mortgages but hinted strongly that they may be more desirable. I guess he's sanguine on inflation pressures building anytime soon. Today he testified to Congress about deficits and what should be done to alleviate them. He didn't advocate raising taxes and did advocate cutting spending. His rational for not wanting taxes raised was that increased taxes puts a damper on economic growth which causes government to take in less revenue in the long run. He also had some comments about Social Security in it's present form. IMO Social Security is ttthhheee sacred cow in Congress and few members are willing to take up it's reform.

Greenspan Urges Social Security Cuts (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=2&u=/ap/20040225/ap_on_bi_ge/greenspan_budget_7)

Greenspan Urges Social Security Cuts
1 hour, 53 minutes ago Add Business - AP to My Yahoo!


By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) urged Congress on Wednesday to deal with the country's escalating budget deficit by cutting benefits for future Social Security (news - web sites) retirees. Without action, he warned, long-term interest rates would rise, seriously harming the economy.


In testimony before the House Budget Committee, Greenspan said the current deficit situation, with a projected record red ink of $521 billion this year, will worsen dramatically once the baby boom generation starts becoming eligible for Social Security benefits in just four years.


He said the prospect of the retirement of 77 million baby boomers will radically change the mix of people working and paying into the Social Security retirement fund and those drawing benefits from the fund.


"This dramatic demographic change is certain to place enormous demands on our nation's resources — demands we will almost surely be unable to meet unless action is taken," Greenspan said. "For a variety of reasons, that action is better taken as soon as possible."


President Bush (news - web sites) said he had not seen Greenspan's comments, nor spoken to him, and declined to respond directly to a reporter's question about them.


Bush said that "my position on Social Security benefits is, those benefits should not be changed for people at or near retirement."


He renewed his call for personal savings accounts for younger workers that he said "would make sure those younger workers receive benefits equal to or greater than that which is expected." And Bush repeated his promise to cut the deficit in half over five years.


While Greenspan urged urgency, Congress is unlikely to take up the controversial issue of cutting Social Security benefits in an election year.


Greenspan, who turns 78 next week, said that the benefits now received by current retirees should not be touched but he suggested trimming benefits for future retirees and doing it soon enough so that they could begin making adjustments to their own finances to better prepare for retirement.


Greenspan did not rule out using tax increases to deal with the looming crisis in Social Security, but he said that tax hikes should only be considered after every effort had been made to trim benefits.


"I am just basically saying that we are overcommitted at this stage," Greenspan said in response to committee questions. "It is important that we tell people who are about to retire what it is they will have." He warned that the government should not "promise more than we are able to deliver."


While the country is currently enjoying the lowest interest rates in more than four-decades, Greenspan warned that this situation will not last forever. He said financial markets will begin pushing long-term interest rates higher if investors do not see progress being made in dealing with the projected huge deficits that will occur once the baby boomers begin retiring.


"We are going to be confronted ... in a few years with an upward ratcheting of long-term interest rates which will be very debilitating for long-term growth," Greenspan told the committee if the deficit problem is not addressed.


Greenspan suggested two ways that benefits could be trimmed. He said that the annual cost-of-living adjustments for those receiving benefits could be made using a new version of the Consumer Price Index (news - web sites) called the chain-weighted index, which gives lower readings on inflation.


He also said that the age for retirement should be indexed in some way to take into account longer lifespans. He noted that presently the age for being able to get full Social Security benefits is rising from 65 to 67 as one of the changes Congress adopted in the mid-1980s, based on recommendations of a commission Greenspan chaired. In his testimony, Greenspan said Congress should go further and index the retirement age so that it will keep rising.


As he has in the past, Greenspan called on Congress to reinstitute rules that require any future tax cuts to be paid for either by spending cuts or increases in other taxes.


While that would erect a high hurdle to Bush's call for making his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, estimated to cost at least $1 trillion over a decade, Greenspan again repeated his belief that spending cuts rather than tax increases were the best way to deal with the exploding deficit.


While not ruling out totally the use of tax increases to deal with at least part of the looming surge in spending on Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, Greenspan urged caution in increasing taxes.

"Tax rate increases of sufficient dimension to deal with our looming fiscal problems arguably pose significant risks to economic growth and the revenue base," Greenspan said. "The exact magnitude of such risks is very difficult to estimate, but they are of enough concern, in my judgment, to warrant aiming to close the fiscal gap primarily, if not wholly, from the outlay side."

sam h
02-25-2004, 09:36 PM
I think you are right on the money Adios about social security being the sacred cow in congress. I also agree with you that Greenspan has done a fine job in his time in Washington.

One problem, as I see it, is that old people vote so often. Especially with Florida having acquired this status as the preeminent battleground state in national politics, I just can't see either party doing the tough but necessary thing and slashing social security for those who don't really need it.

There is an interesting theory about Japan that basically posits that the reason the recession there has been so bad is that the system was unable to pick losers after the bubble burst. Basically, somebody - either big interests in the financial system or the general public through a bailout (like in our S&L scandal) - had to pay for real reform and recovery to occur, but this institutionalized consensus kept any one powerful body from simply deciding who was going to bear the burden.

Its a bit of a stretch, but I think we're facing a somewhat similar situation with this budget deficit. We are kidding ourselves if we think that it can be erased without somebody paying, and maybe even paying big time. I'm no economist, but my bullsh-t detector starts ticking when I hear Bush and others say that we can just privatize aspects of social security, nobody will lose anything, and we'll all be fine. I understand the argument that social security funds aren't invested very well right now. But its going to take a lot to convince me that this problem can be solved without somebody taking a hit.

For me, the natural people to pay are wealthy old people who don't need benefits anyway. But those are some powerful geezers, and seem about as likely to bear this cost as the Japanese financial insiders were in the above comparison.