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
