Opinion Editorial | |
| Monday, December 13, 1999 | |
Why Not Raise The Retirement Age?
|
After months of failing to gain traction against GOP frontrunner George W. Bush, Steve Forbes is trying to get mileage out of attacking Bush for wanting to raise the retirement age. Not only is the charge against Bush a stretch, it is wrongheaded. As someone whose own views on Social Security have often been misportrayed and demagogued, Forbes should know better.
Bush has not, in fact, proposed raising the normal retirement age from 65, where it has been since the Social Security system was established. (In 1983, Congress enacted a gradual rise in the retirement age to 67 beginning in 2000 and phased-in over the next 22 years.) On "Meet the Press" on November 21, Bush was asked whether he would "look at raising the eligibility for the boomer generation?" Bush said he did not favor any change in the short run, but it might be needed in the long-run as part of the transition to a system of private Social Security accounts.
Forbes has leaped at the comment, making it appear as if raising the retirement age is a central feature of Bush's program. He attacked the idea as "absolutely unacceptable," "a betrayal," and "part and parcel of what is wrong with Washington."
Now it is true that under a fully privatized retirement system, such as Forbes proposes, there would be no mandatory retirement age. But we are a long, long way away from that sort of system, and getting from here to there undoubtedly will require some reduction in benefits. I believe that raising the retirement age is the best way of financing the transition, because it has no effect on current retirees.
Steve Forbes once thought so too. In an article in Forbes Magazine on November 15, 1977, he said, "Alas, the unaffordable [Social Security] promises have to be scaled back, and the best way to do that is to gradually raise the age at which one may collect his full benefits."
When the Social Security system was first established, 65 was actually higher than the male life expectancy at birth. It has risen by 12 years since and is expected to continue rising (see figure). Indeed, a new report from the Social Security Advisory Board says that Social Security's actuaries are underestimating the increase in life expectancy. And recent studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the Urban Institute and others show that the improving health of today's elderly means that many can easily continue working long past the traditional retirement age. In this day and age, raising the retirement age is good policy, not something to be attacked.
Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, December 13, 1999.
For Social Security Advisory Board report
http://www.ssab.gov
The National Center for Policy Analysis is a public policy research
institute founded in 1983 and internationally known for its studies on public policy issues.
The NCPA is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with an office in Washington, D.C.
Julie Hillrichs, Dallas, TX 972-386-6272 Sean Tuffnell, Dallas, TX 972-386-6272 Joan Kirby, Washington, DC 202-220-3082 Internet: http://www.ncpa.org Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security Debate Central | Contact Us |
