The generosity of U.S. income support programs can best be
conceptualized from two main factors: 1) the perceived worthiness of
the recipient and 2) the scope of the governmental authority that
provides it. Among the means-tested welfare programs, this typology
suggest the following hierarchy. First, there is Supplemental Security
Income for the aged, blind, and disabled (the worthy poor), federalized
by Nixon in 1973. Then, there is TANF, state-run with federal monies for
welfare recipients (the unworthy poor--mostly, mothers and children ),
and then finally General Assistance, the most meager of all the
programs, operated by smaller localities for unworthy single adults.
Hence adequacy, the scope of governmental authority, and the perceived
worthiness of the recipients are all closely correlated. None of these
programs pay anything close to an decent amount, but these factors do
determine how close they can come.
Joel Blau
Daniel Davies wrote:
If we're going to collect a load of material on SS, then one area we should
certainly be looking into is the miserable failure of means-tested benefits
always and everywhere.
dd
-----Original Message-----
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Frank,
Ellen
Sent: 05 November 2004 22:47
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Social Security
From: PEN-L list on behalf of Joel Blau
But just as a hard practical matter, since Bush's own commission on social
security couldn't agree on a plan, where are they going to get to the $2
trillion in transition costs?
I think the answer is that they don't plan to get it at all.
They plan to cut benefits and raise payroll taxes.
By the way,if you are interested in critiquing private accounts,
try this exercise:
make a spreadsheet with the median income for a college grad
by some reasonable 5 over 40 years. Take 2% of that each year
and compound it by a reasonable moderate risk real return
less management fees (say 3.5%) and see what you end up with.
Not much. Now deduct the cost of annuitization.
I have written a lot on SS, some of which is in my new
book, The Raw Deal. SS is best thought of as an inter-
generational transfer program. We care for the elderly
with the understanding that the next generation will care
for us when we are old. It is not possible for SS to go
broke because it is not a financial/savings program.
Someone told me yesterday that they had read that Kerry
had SS might need to be means-tested. She couldn't remember
where she read it. Anyone else seen this?
Ellen