This editorial in the Washington Post really irritated me when I read it, so this response is nice to see:
The Geezers Are Not Alright: The Washington Post editorial board wants to cut Medicare and Social Security. That has been its consistent position as long as I can remember. And what it advocates, always, are cuts in benefits, not costs..., things like a rise in the Medicare age. These are the kind of moves that are considered serious inside the Beltway. And as you might imagine, the Post has gone wild over recent suggestions that Social Security should be expanded, not cut.
But perceived seriousness is not the same as actual seriousness, which depends on the facts. We now know that raising the Medicare age is a truly terrible idea, which would create a lot of hardship while making next to no dent in the budget deficit. And the central premise of the latest editorial — that the elderly are doing fine — just isn’t true.
The Post writes:
The bill’s authors warn of a looming “retirement crisis” because of low savings rates and disappearing private-sector pensions. In fact, the poverty rate among the elderly is 9.1 percent, lower than the national rate of 15 percent — and much lower than the 21.8 percent rate among children.
This suggests that Social Security is doing a good job of fighting poverty as is and that those gains could be preserved in any attempt to trim the program.
Guys, you have to keep up here. It’s well-known that the official poverty measure is quite flawed... — and it’s especially flawed when it comes to the elderly... The Census Supplemental Poverty Measure puts senior poverty at 14.8 percent, only slightly lower than the rate for younger adults.
And some of today’s seniors are still benefiting from traditional defined-benefit retirement plans. In the future, income other than from Social Security will depend almost entirely on defined-contribution plans — basically 401(k)s. And 401(k)s are basically an experiment that failed, except for the already affluent.
Maybe you don’t believe that the failure of defined-contribution plans is a reason to expand the one major defined-benefit plan we have, aka Social Security. But don’t make that argument by claiming that all is well with America’s seniors. The geezers are not alright.
And even if the poverty rate among the elderly is tolerable as it is -- I'm not making that claim, but suppose it is -- the reason why advocates want to increase benefits is the fear that things will get worse in the future. Today's poverty rate doesn't tell us much about the "looming 'retirement crisis.'" Whether or not today's rate is in the tolerable range, should accept more poverty without trying to do something about it? Should we be happy about a large increase in the percentage that are in poverty just because we start from a tolerable figure? And what if today's figure isn't tolerable after all? In any case, this is about the rate of change in poverty among the elderly in the future, not the level now.