Thomas B. Edsall, in the NYTimes, makes clear, sound arguments about Social Security and Medicare reform:
"First, insofar as benefits for the affluent are reduced or eliminated under means-testing, social insurance programs are no longer universal and are seen, instead, as a form of welfare. Public support would almost certainly decline, encouraging further cuts in the future.
Second, the focus on means-testing and raising the age of eligibility diverts attention from a much simpler and more equitable approach: raising the payroll tax to apply to the earnings of the well-to-do, a step strongly opposed by the ideological right. In this kind of conflict over limited goods, one of the most valuable resources that can get lost in the fray is the wisdom of the electorate at large.
Third, and most important in terms of the policy debate, while both means-testing and eliminating the $113,700 cap on earnings subject to the payroll tax hurt the affluent, the latter would inflict twice as much pain."
I would have liked for him to analyze the Conservative view that any policy that supports those in need creates a cycle of dependency. Together with the opposing view, that a civil, moral society takes care of those in need, these positions show the sharp, radical split that prevents sane, thoughtful actions.
Helping those in need can create dependency, particularly when the help does not enable beneficiaries out of their crises. Yet not helping those in the midst of a crises, no matter the amount of past help, is immoral. Policy is caught between competing visions of pragmatics, morals and ideals.
Raising the cap is my choice, though I recognize this action does not create conditions that enable rather than remediate.
No comments:
Post a Comment