off the charts
BEYOND THE NUMBERS
BEYOND THE NUMBERS
Ways and Means Mum on Revenue Increases for Social Security in Bowles-Simpson, Domenici-Rivlin
The House Ways and Means Committee has invited members of the public to comment on the Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin plans to restore solvency to Social Security. But there’s a glaring omission: from reading the committee’s description of the two plans — and its draft bills — you’d never know that both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin urged significant increases in Social Security taxes. Ways and Means focuses solely on the benefit reductions in the two packages. Those savings would come from a proposal to use the chained CPI for computing cost-of-living adjustments; from scaling back benefits, especially for medium and higher earners; and from adjusting Social Security benefits for rising life expectancy (either by hiking the retirement age, as in Bowles-Simpson, or by further paring the benefit formula, as in Domenici-Rivlin). Ways and Means also notes that both plans propose to improve benefits for certain long-term, low-paid workers. But revenue increases made an important contribution to long-run solvency in both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin. (See graph.) Because the benefit cuts would be phased in gradually, the 75th year paints a truer picture of the long-run policy mix than does the average over 75 years. We didn’t think revenue increases contributed enough in Bowles-Simpson — they made up only one-third of its savings over 75 years and just one-fifth in the 75th year — but they weren’t absent. Social Security is a popular program, and poll respondents of all ages and incomes express a willingness to support it through higher taxes. We think a balanced solvency package must include revenue increases, not just benefit cuts. (The program’s benefits are already extremely modest, both in dollar terms — the average retired worker or widow receives less than $1,300 a month — and by international standards.) And a well-crafted package would also make targeted improvements to the Supplemental Security Income program — which is distinct from Social Security but has important overlaps — and would replenish the Disability Insurance trust fund. Neither Bowles-Simpson nor Domenici-Rivlin quite measures up by those criteria, and we urge policymakers to do better. But failing to tell the public that both plans included significant revenue increases is disingenuous.
Receive the latest news and reports from the Center