CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research


En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs Social Security Monitor False Dilemmas in the Social Security Debate

False Dilemmas in the Social Security Debate

Written by CEPR   
Friday, 18 May 2012 15:20

Matt Miller, in a recent Washington Post column, talks about the need for a third party to change the boundaries of debate in politics. OK, but let's read a little more. One of his reasons includes "reallocating public resources from outsized projected spending on programs serving seniors to big investments in the future." Miller writes:

If you think we should not guarantee the next generation of retirees a 30 percent real increase in initial Social Security benefits (as we do today) before we’ve first guaranteed that every child in America has access to high-quality pre-schools and great teachers (in part by recruiting top college students to careers in the classroom and paying them up to $150,000 a year), which party represents your voice?

But why is it one or the other? As Dean Baker writes on Beat the Press, "Since workers pay for their Social Security benefits with a designated tax, his sentence makes no more sense than saying we should not pay interest on the government bonds held by wealthy people like Peter Peterson before guaranteeing decent eduction for our kids. Those of us familiar with the projections know that there is no reason that we cannot do both."

Comments (1)Add Comment
Marc by Marc Jacobs bags
written by Marc by Marc Jacobs bags, May 24, 2012 11:52
Marc by Marc Jacobs bags

Write comment

(Only one link allowed per comment)

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.


Support this blog, donate
Combined Federal Campaign #79613