Because of Bush's tax cuts:

The Washington Post has an editorial where they advocate reducing benefits for Social Security recipients. What struck us as bizarre was this passage: (emp add)

Some argue that this isn't a problem. Upping past salaries allows pensioners to share in the general rise in prosperity; besides, if Social Security taxes were raised on salaries above the current cutoff of $90,000 a year, the growth in benefits would be affordable. But given that future tax increases are inevitable to pay for soaring medical costs and for the deficits brought on by Mr. Bush and the Republican Congress, it's not responsible to fix Social Security's funding shortfall exclusively by raising taxes.

So, why doesn't the Post advocate undoing the tax cuts that resulted in "the deficits brought on by Mr. Bush"?

Then there was this gem: (emp add)

If workers aren't happy with a pension that, while generous in relation to the living standards of their younger years, feels stingy in relation to their earnings immediately before retirement, they can, if not in the lower brackets, save privately to supplement their Social Security benefit; if healthy, they also can postpone retirement.

In other words, if you are in the lower tax brackets (brackets !) or unhealthy, then you're in big trouble.

And what's this about healthy people postponing retirement? That's an evasion. People deserve retirement. Taking the Post's logic another step, we could argue:

• If you own a car, you could sell it for food and rent.
• If you like eating cat food, then lower benefits won't be a problem.
• If you've got a spare kidney, you could trade that for cash.

posted by Quiddity at 1/09/2005 08:50:00 AM