🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
467
views

In most political campaigns, candidates promise more than they can deliver. In the United States, both Democrats and Republicans promise better health care, a better environment, only minor reductions in defence, better education, and an improved system of roads, bridges, sewer systems, water systems, and so on. What economic concept do candidates ignore?

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
467
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Insha Fatima
Insha FatimaLv10
28 Sep 2019

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics
2nd Edition, 2017
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172364
Principles of Macroeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172388
Principles of Microeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172340

Related questions

6. Though political pundits on television and radio inform the public, they also have to be concerned with

a. Entertainment value to increase their ratings.b. All of these.c. Making their audiences feel better about America.d. Being factually correct.

7. Social movements have been important sources of social, political, and economic change in the United States.

a. TRUEb. FALSE

8. A double standard exists on the part of advocacy organizations because issues facing advantaged subgroups get more attention than those facing disadvantaged subgroups.

a. TRUEb. FALSE

9. Contemporary political observers echo the two views of de Tocqueville and Madison in how they view the role of political groups.

a. FALSEb. TRUE

10. A national advocacy organization is an interest group

a. That only represents businesses.b. That informally represents broad groups of Americans who have similar interests.c. That represents all Americans whether they are powerful or not.d. That only represents minorities or people with less power in society.

11. The American people believe that justices on the US Supreme Court

a. None of these.b. Should be appointed for life.c. Should be elected and only for a 10-year term.d. Should be elected for life.

12. Regional, cultural, religious, occupational, and ethnic diversity all tend to increase the formation of political groups and social movements.

a. FALSEb. TRUE

13. In the United States, political parties are

a. Relatively rareb. Are a relatively accidental feature of the American historyc. None of thesed. Mentioned in the Constitution

14. Why are interest groups, political organiztions, and social movements so numerous in the US?

a. All of these.b. Because federalism and the separation of powers have created multiple points of access to political institutions.c. Because of the 1st Amendment, which protects speech. association, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.d. Because the way people are elected to Congress does not do a very good job of representing minorities, who have to find other ways of getting their needs met.

15. What is the margin of error for a sample of 1000 voters?

a. Plus or minus 3%.b. Plus or minus 1%c. Plus or minus 5%d. Plus or minus 2%

16. E.E. Schactschneider says about the interest groups that claim to work for poor people

a. That they may be making things worse for these people.b. That they do a good job even without handing out small benefits to attract people to their group.c. None of these.d. That they are able to accomplish a great deal even though the poor do not join those groups.

17. Why do the campaign staffs of presidential candidates pass up large states like California and Texas to concentrate on smaller states like New Mexico or Ohio?

a. The large states are just a few and there are more votes altogether in the small states.b. It is easier to persuade people in the small states.c. The large states are reliably red or blue, so the campaigns go after states where the vote is closer and they can take all of the votes even with a small win.d. The large states are just too expensive for campaigning.

18. Jackson notes that equality is generally defined as

a. Equality of process.b. Equality of opportunity.c. Equality of outcomes.d. Equality of results.

19. In an open primary, the voter can choose which primary election--Democratic or Republican--he or she would like to vote in.

a. TRUEb. FALSE

20. The women’s movement can be very active on an issue such as affirmative action in higher education, which afffects their more affluent members, but overlook welfare reform, an important issue for their more disadvantaged or marginalized members.

a. TRUEb. FALSE

21. It is sometimes called "first-past-the-post" and sometimes "winner-take-all," but this kind of election means

a. No matter how many votes are cast and how many candidates the one with the most votes wins.b. None of these.c. The candidates have to have run-off elections until one wins two thirds of the votes.d. The top two candidates have to have a run off election.

22. Public opinion matters because in a democratic system we believe that government policy should follow the public will.

a. TRUEb. FALSE

23. With regard to ideology, Americans

a. Tend to identify with a party by their mid 20s.b. Tend to choose a political affiliation early in life.c. Tend to stay identified with a political party consistently the rest of their lives.d. All of these.

24. Alexis de Tocqueville

a. Found few religious associations in America.b. Wrote at the time of the American revolution in the 1780s.c. Wrote his great book Democracy in America at a time when Americans were forming many interest groups and associations in the 1830s.d. Was appalled at the number of commercial and manufacturing associations he found in America.

25. According to Strolovitch, in judging the effectiveness of an advocacy organization which claims to represent the marginalized,what are the guiding questions we should ask?

a. How active for the intersectionally marginalized are they? Because without that the organization is a failure.b. What coalitions do they form? Because coalitions are the key to success.c. What institutions do they target and what coalitions do they form? Because the political activity is the most important barometer.d. How active for the intersectionally marginalizedn are they, what institutions do they target, and what coalitions do they form?

26. How do the two dominant political parties prevent minor parties from emerging?

a. By using their vast funds and media resources to disparage minor party candidates.b. By refusing to give successful third party candidates leadership positions in the legislature.c. By poaching popular third party candidates before they begin to help their party.d. By manipulating election rules in debates and public funding to discriminate against the minor parties.

27. Since 1836, the republic has been dominated by how many political parties at a time?

a. Threeb. Fivec. Oned. Two

28. As sample size increases, the margin of error

a. Is greater than or equal to the margin of error.b. Stays the same.c. Decreases.d. Increases.

29. Affirmative advocacy

a. Looks for over-represented and under-represented issues in setting the agenda for activityb. Actively seeks out coalitions and works with others at the state and local levelc. All of thesed. Has a proactive agenda

30. The cell-phone only population is likely to include more young people, which pollsters have to take into account

a. TRUEb. FALSE

31. One method that schools use to politically socialize young people is

a. Ask students to watch TV news.b. Tell students who to vote for.c. Ask student to participate in mock elections.d. Ask students to read newspapers.

32. In addition to the legislative branch, advocacy groups target the executive and judicial branches.

a. TRUEb. FALSE

33. The problem with opt-in internet panels is that

a. Participants self-select, leaving out significant sections of the public.b. All of these.c. They have a greater margin of error.d. They do not use scientific methods.

34. An example of an organization which claims to represent a large demographic group is

a. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).b. All of these.c. The Japanese American Citizen's Leagues (JACL).d. The National Organization of Women (NOW).

35. Conservative and liberal ideologies differ mostly on

a. Campaign finance reform.b. Defense policy only.c. Economic and social issues.d. Civil rights.

36. Despite the fears of some that advocates for marginalized groups appeal to the courts too much, evidence shows that they in fact use the courts reluctantly and as a last resort.

a. FALSEb. TRUE

37. Are Americans more likely to vote in presidential elections than other types of elections?

a. No, Americans like to vote for direct democracy issues rather than indirect democracy representation.b. Yes, consistently American participate in presidential elections over other elections.c. Only in years when the presidential election is particularly interesting.d. No, because Americans are more interested in local issues.

38. The key way in which political parties enable democracy is

a. They stimulate interest among members of the mass publicb. All of thesec. They keep elected officials responsived. They allow a broader spectrum of participants to become involved in politics

39. In democracies around the world, multi-party systems are much more common and one sees small parties that advocate for one issue, one religion, or one demographic group.

a. TRUEb. FALSE

40. Poll results vary based on

a. Whether the method used was approved by the Census Bureau.b. Mean, median, and mode.c. Survey mode, sample size, and population definition.d. The statistical application of the Weights and Measures Bureau’s guidelines.

41. Voters who like a third party are nevertheless inclined to vote for a dominant party candidate for fear they will waste their votes.

a. FALSEb. TRUE

42. National organizations that file amicus curiae briefs are targeting

a. The Congress.b. The courts.c. The presidency.d. The Federal Reserve Bank.

43. Small racial, ethnic, or religious groups in the US

a. Don't have quotas for seats in the schools or government as they do in India.b. Do not have a party which is dedicated to their interests.c. Do not have legislative representation as is the cases in other countries with proportional representation.d. All of these.

44. When is the candidate's website NOT a good source of information?

a. To find more information about the candidate's biography.b. To find out more about the candidate's positions on the issues.c. To find an unbiased account of the candidate's voting history.d. To find out which prominent people and organizations support the candidate.

45. According to the "funnel of causality," party identification is more psychological than anything.

a. FALSEb. TRUE

46. The agencies which connect people to government are called "linkage mechanisms."

a. TRUEb. FALSE

47. Some theorists argue against the pluralists with a "rational actor" argument that says

a. That people are rational and want to maximize benefits and minimize effort, so they do not spend their time and resources to organize.b. That rational people always seek public goods.c. That it is rational to organize to acquire more public goods.d. That rational people really do not want the public goods as much as theorists think.

48. According to Jackson, the digital revolution has given us more information about the candidates,

a. And the candidates usually approve of the things written about them.b. And the information is usually quite accurate.c. But the information is not always accurate.d. But it is not very detailed.

49. Red states mean states that usually vote for the Democratic Party, while blue states mean those that are reliable for the Republican Party.

a. FALSEb. TRUE

50. According to Jackson, what is a core political value that nearly all Americans accept?

a. Equalityb. Democracyc. Libertyd. All of these

Can you summarize this article and wrtite down some important points regarding GDP?

NEW YORK – Striving to revive the world economy while simultaneously responding to the global climate crisis has raised a knotty question: are statistics giving us the right “signals” about what to do? In our performance-oriented world, measurement issues have taken on increased importance: what we measure affects what we do. If we have poor measures, what we strive to do (say, increase GDP) may actually contribute to a worsening of living standards. We may also be confronted with false choices, seeing trade-offs between output and environmental protection that don’t exist. By contrast, a better measure of economic performance might show that steps taken to improve the environment are good for the economy. Eighteen months ago, French President Nicolas Sarkozy established an international Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, owing to his dissatisfaction – and that of many others – with the current state of statistical information about the economy and society. On September 14, the Commission will issue its long-awaited report. The big question concerns whether GDP provides a good measure of living standards. In many cases, GDP statistics seem to suggest that the economy is doing far better than most citizens’ own perceptions. Moreover, the focus on GDP creates conflicts: political leaders are told to maximize it, but citizens also demand that attention be paid to enhancing security, reducing air, water, and noise pollution, and so forth – all of which might lower GDP growth. The fact that GDP may be a poor measure of well-being, or even of market activity, has, of course, long been recognized. But changes in society and the economy may have heightened the problems, at the same time that advances in economics and statistical techniques may have provided opportunities to improve our metrics. For example, while GDP is supposed to measure the value of output of goods and services, in one key sector – government – we typically have no way of doing it, so we often measure the output simply by the inputs. If government spends more – even if inefficiently – output goes up. In the last 60 years, the share of government output in GDP has increased from 21.4% to 38.6% in the US, from 27.6% to 52.7% in France, from 34.2% to 47.6% in the United Kingdom, and from 30.4% to 44.0% in Germany. So what was a relatively minor problem has now become a major one. Likewise, quality improvements – say, better cars rather than just more cars – account for much of the increase in GDP nowadays. But assessing quality improvements is difficult. Health care exemplifies this problem: much of medicine is publicly provided, and much of the advances are in quality. The same problems in making comparisons over time apply to comparisons across countries. The United States spends more on health care than any other country (both per capita and as a percentage of income), but gets poorer outcomes. Part of the difference between GDP per capita in the US and some European countries may thus be a result of the way we measure things. Another marked change in most societies is an increase in inequality. This means that there is increasing disparity between average (mean) income and the median income (that of the “typical” person, whose income lies in the middle of the distribution of all incomes). If a few bankers get much richer, average income can go up, even as most individuals’ incomes are declining. So GDP per capita statistics may not reflect what is happening to most citizens. We use market prices to value goods and services. But now, even those with the most faith in markets question reliance on market prices, as they argue against mark-to-market valuations. The pre-crisis profits of banks – onethird of all corporate profits – appear to have been a mirage. This realization casts a new light not only on our measures of performance, but also on the inferences we make. Before the crisis, when US growth (using standard GDP measures) seemed so much stronger than that of Europe, many Europeans argued that Europe should adopt US-style capitalism. Of course, anyone who wanted to could have seen American households’ growing indebtedness, which would have gone a long way toward correcting the false impression of success given by the GDP statistic. Recent methodological advances have enabled us to assess better what contributes to citizens’ sense of well-being, and to gather the data needed to make such assessments on a regular basis. These studies, for instance, verify and quantify what should be obvious: the loss of a job has a greater impact than can be accounted for just by the loss of income. They also demonstrate the importance of social connectedness. Any good measure of how well we are doing must also take account of sustainability. Just as a firm needs to measure the depreciation of its capital, so, too, our national accounts need to reflect the depletion of natural resources and the degradation of our environment. Statistical frameworks are intended to summarize what is going on in our complex society in a few easily interpretable numbers. It should have been obvious that one couldn’t reduce everything to a single number, GDP. The report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress will, one hopes, lead to a better understanding of the uses, and abuses, of that statistic. GDP Fetishism - Project Syndicate 2/8/10 4:05 PM http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz116/English Page 2 of 3 The report should also provide guidance for creating a broader set of indicators that more accurately capture both well-being and sustainability; and it should provide impetus for improving the ability of GDP and related statistics to assess the performance of the economy and society. Such reforms will help us direct our efforts (and resources) in ways that lead to improvement in both. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009. www.project-syndicate.org Reprinting material from this website without written consent from Project Syndicate is a violation of international copyright law. To secure permission, please contact [email protected]. tvselvakumaran 05:30 30 Sep 09 The official consensus Professor Martin Feldstein's latest article, "The G-20's Empty Promises" on Project Syndicate needs careful consideration. In his article, Professor Feldstein essentially adopts the "official consensus" of the economics profession on the current economic crisis. This official consensus, in its various mainfestations, has also been elaborated on by other famous economists, notably Professor Robert Lucas in his article in the Economist in early August, and by Professor Paul Krugman in his recent article in the New York Times Magazine. One characterizing feature of this official consensus is a confidence (a.k.a. triumphalism) in the certainty of outcomes predicted by modern economic theory. The main precepts of this official consensus are (i) Professor Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, has at his disposal all the theoretical tools of economics that are necessary and sufficient to deal with the current economic crisis. As Professor Lucas explains it in his Economist article, if one were able to predict in advance exactly when a market crash would occur, it would imply that the market entertains arbritrage opportunities. Hence, it is not possible to predict financial crises in advance. However, except for the precise timing of the occurrence of financial crises, macroeconomic theory could explain the workings of the economy completely. In particular, to avert the recurrence of the Great Depression, certain actions were needed to be taken by the Fed -- the specifics of these actions were all clearly understood by the economics profession. However, it was politically untenable to take these actions before there was a financial crisis. Once the financial crisis occurred though, Professor Bernanke could intervene in the markets and take the necessary actions (in the Fall of 2008). These actions include the injection of several trillion dollars into the economy and making the availability of credit the cheapest possible. The actions taken by the Fed have now resulted in the economy avoiding a recurrence of the Great Depression. This is, in brief, what Professor Lucas has stated in his Economist article. (ii) Thus in Professor Lucas' interpretation of things, the collapse of Lehman Brothers, for example, was necessary, in order to justify the intervention of the Federal Reserve in the functioning of the markets. The collapse of Lehman Brothers was, although regrettable, an unavoidable event. But, on the whole, monetary policy, even if it is a profligate one, would be necessary and sufficient to prevent the recurrence of the Great Depression, in Professor Lucas' view. Furthermore, the old wisdom of the Chicago School that government should be kept minimal at all times continues to hold, even in light of the current economic crisis. The Keynesians led by Professor Krugman, on the other hand, believe that Lehman Brothers should never have been allowed to fail. In their view, when the Fed's fund rate is at zero, monetary policy is largely ineffective for sustaining and stimulating economic activity. This is because of liquidity traps caused by businessmen who don't see economic opportunities that would induce them to borrow the cheap money available from the banks. Hence the government should step in to provide massive fiscal assistance to the economy by taking on spending directly, even if it means assuming trillions of dollars of public debt. (iii) Professor Krugman scored a lot of points by pointing out that the current state of economic theory, highly influenced as it is by the efficient market hypothesis of the Chicago School, indicated that a crisis of such magnitude as the current economic crisis could not happen at all. This fundamental failure to recognize that an enormous crisis could indeed happen, calls for the overthrow of the policy that markets provide the best social gain when they are completely free from government interference. From first impressions, it might seem that the views of the monetarists and Keynesians are vastly different. However, it is important to note that in the view of the Keynesians too, once large scale government spending as prescribed by the Keynesians is instituted, there is again enough assurance that modern economic theory (although with a heavy Keynesian tilt) would be sufficient to deal with the current economic crisis. (iv) In this regard, perhaps it is relevant to refer here to Professor Robert Shiller's latest article, "Re-inventing Economics" on Project Syndicate. Professor Shiller points out that the free market ideology fails to identify bubbles. Because of the belief that markets know best on all occasions, bubbles cannot occur according to the free market ideology. Professor Shiller's approach pursues a different branch of the Keynesian school of thought than the big spenders. Rather than advocate large government spending to avert a depression, Professor Shiller proposes using techniques from behavioral psychology to predict bubbles in advance. In this way, the socially harmful effects of massive misallocations of capital that arose in the case of the housing bubble or the tech bubble could be prevented in the future. In his other recent article, "Echo Chamber of Boom and Bust" in the New York Times, Professor Shiller elaborates further on the techniques that one could use for studying bubbles. Briefly, the process by which confidence or panic spreads in markets is very similar to the process by which diseases spread among populations. This outlook allows for introducing methods that scientists use to study epidemics into the study of bubbles. (v) The Keynesians have also managed to re-write the conventional wisdom on the advantages of a strong dollar. Through the works of Professors Barry Eichengreen, Jeffrey Sachs and Ben Bernnake, a consensus has developed that attempting to support the gold standard was a major cause for the prolongation of the Great Depression. This has resulted in a viewpoint among economists that a devaluation of the dollar at present would help to reduce global imbalances by restoring the American manufacturing industry. The implications of this viewpoint were analyzed by Professor Feldstein in his July 2009 article "America's Saving Rate and the Dollar's Future" on Project Syndicate, with the conclusion that devaluation of the dollar would necessarily lead to a better future for GDP Fetishism - Project Syndicate 2/8/10 4:05 PM http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz116/English Page 3 of 3 America. Lost in this new interpretation is the fact that a stable dollar provides many economic benefits for America. The equity premium for American companies taking more risks globally, the transaction charges for providing market making facilities in global markets, and the provisions of liquidity for the currency of international trade are major drivers of economic growth for America, which derive from the dollar being the global reserve currency. (vi) Some other Keynesians have gone beyond questioning just the free market ideology. For example, in his latest article, "GDP Fetishism" on Project Syndicate, Professor Joseph Stiglitz proposes a broad set of economic indicators like health, well-being and sustainability rather than a narrow focus on GDP growth. Yet other developments imply that the rest of the world is steadily moving away from using the dollar as the main reserve currency. To finance this new global reserve system, the IMF has created $250 billion worth of Special Drawing Rights (SDR), and the IMF has indicated its intention to triple this allocation of $250 billion in the future. It would need a strong commitment from the policy-makers in America to re-claim for the dollar its position as the predominant global reserve currency. However, judging from the writings of American economists like Professor Feldstein, it appears that the consensus among professional economists favors devaluing the dollar instead. (vii) The official consensus is a result of a grand compromise between the Chicago School economists and the Keynesians.The conservative economists of the Chicago School would like to avoid the embarassment of getting publicly criticized for the failures of the efficient market hypothesis that this current economics crisis has severely exposed. So famous conservative economists like Professor Lucas have reached out for a consensus by indicating their willingness for a compromise. This compromise involves among other things, (a) foregoing raising concerns about the government's mismanagement of Fanie Mae and Freddie Mac, and (b) lending support to the Fed and the Treasury in their efforts to stabilize the economy, even if the methods that the Fed and the Treasury employ are highly inefficient. What are the Keynesians compromising on? Well, the Western liberal tradition has been intellectually bankrupt ever since the late 1960s. It is only the free market ideology of the Chicago School that has served as the driver of wealth creation in the advanced countries during the last four decades. Hence, the official consensus is a convenient compromise for the Keynesians to avoid asking difficult questions about the future of the Western liberal tradition. Instead, they would like to enact much drama in the media about the resurrection of their hero, John Maynard Keynes. (viii) One other characterizing feature of the official consensus in the economics profession is a collective tendency to "Blame It All On Obama". The conservative economists blame President Obama for not focusing adequately on America's ballooning national debt. The liberals, led by Professor Krugman, fault President Obama for getting distracted from the left's free spending ways by concerns on the size of the fiscal deficit. In the confusion that has ensued, President Obama's own team of economics advisors has fallen back on the official consensus in the economics profession. Availing themselves of the security provided by this official consensus, President Obama's economics team has misled the President thoroughly in economic matters. To begin with, the President is only empowered to administer the nation's affairs for a four year term. The projections put out by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for the deficits in the next decade are only a non-authoritative guidance for where the nation's finances would be, if current policies hold for the next decade. Instead, the democrats have been behaving as if the $9 trillion of additional public debt that the CBO projects for the next decade is already a given certainty. In particular, they have not been careful to mention clearly in public discussions how much of this extra spending can be attributed to the President's own spending plans in his current four-year term. Neither have they shown any concerns for taking the Fed and the Treasury to taks for their highly inefficient methods to stabilize the economy. Because of these instances of neglect, the public is not willing to trust the government in financial matters. President Obama has rapidly lost his approval ratings. Professor Lawrence Summers, Professor Christina Romer, Professor Austan Goolsbee and Professor Peter Orszag are directly responsible for this abuse of public trust. (ix) The official consensus has also prevented economists from recognizing that President Obama's universal message of tolerance and justice, which has been received very favorably all around the world, actually opens up vast areas of economic opportunity for America. Unfortunately, it does not matter, for the economists, whether George W. Bush or Barack Obama is in office. The most they can do is re-work their models to favor Keynesian policies, and to argue that the policies they propose arise directly from their number-crunching methods. One might be tempted to attribute this widespread consensus among economists to stick to a narrow theoretical interpretation of the current economic crisis, to the certainty afforded by the mathematical models, which have become indispensible through the course of the 20th century, for the development of economic theory. However, this would be a big mistake. The official consensus in the economics profession is primarily a result of undue influences of power and money. It is much less a result of mathematically based economic theory. In the longterm, this attitude among economists of sticking to an official consensus is going to do serious damage to the American economy. Some other aspects of the official consensus have been explained very well by Professor Kenneth Rogoff in his recent article, "The Confidence Game" on Project Syndicate. I recommend that the reader go through that article. The official consensus is the single largest threat to a robust recovery in the global economy. The official consensus also gravely misinterprets the events of the Great Depression. The implications of this misinterpretation bear directly on the economic health of America.

Learn more about Social Security and Medicare reform (to improve financial strength of the programs) or solvency through Internet exploration. Find an article or resource related to one of these topics. Attach the article and write a brief summary (300-400 words) of what you found. Summarize the Article.

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

U.S. Social Security reform: the clock is ticking

Clocks are seen during the performance "tck tck tck" by Global Campaign for Climate Action at the Barcelona Climate Change Talks, November 4, 2009. REUTERS/Albert Gea

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Can you count on your Social Security benefits when retirement rolls around?

Most Americans worry about this - partly due to the nonsense they hear from political opponents of Social Security and ill-informed media. You will hear that the program is bankrupt, its reserves are nothing but a bunch of IOUs, or that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

All of those claims are false, but there is one good reason for concern. Social Security faces a long-term financial imbalance that would force sharp benefit cuts in 2034 unless the government makes changes. The problem stems from falling fertility rates and labor force growth - which reduces collection of payroll taxes that fund the system - and also from the retirement of baby boomers, which increases benefit costs.

Absent reform, Social Security could continue to pay roughly 75 percent of promised benefits. The cuts would mean that the typical 65-year-old worker could expect Social Security to replace 27 percent of pre-retirement income, down from 36 percent today, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

No surprise, then, that only 37 percent of workers are “very or somewhat confident” that Social Security will be able to maintain current benefit levels in the future, according to survey research by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) - although confidence is much higher among older workers and retirees.

From a math standpoint, potential solutions to the problem are straightforward. The cuts can be avoided through increased revenue, benefit reductions or some combination of the two. But the politics are another matter.

Republicans are far from holding a unified position on the issue. For example, U.S. Representative Sam Johnson, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security, has proposed legislation containing two significant benefit cuts: gradually raising full retirement ages to 69 by 2030, and using a less generous annual cost-of-living adjustment formula known as the chained CPI.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has so far held to his campaign promise of opposing cuts. He has suggested that economic growth will solve the problem by stimulating wage growth and payroll tax collections - a position most economists dismiss as unrealistic.

REPUBLICAN ENTHUSIASM LACKING

The last major Republican reform proposal dates back to the George W. Bush administration, which proposed shifting the program to personal savings accounts - an idea that aroused Republican passion but that went down in flames.

“That was an idea that got people excited, but there hasn’t been much enthusiasm for Social Security reform among Republicans since then,” said Andrew Biggs, resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Biggs worked on Social Security reform as an associate director of the White House National Economic Council.

Meanwhile, Democrats are in no mood to work with the Trump administration on anything that forces a compromise on their core values - and they have shifted significantly to the left on Social Security reform. Representative John Larson has introduced legislation that would not only restore trust fund balance but expand benefits. That is by far the best approach, since roughly half of all households have saved less than $25,000, according to EBRI. Larson’s bill is cosponsored by more than 80 percent of the Democratic House caucus - more than any previous expansion bill.

The bill would increase benefits by 2 percent across the board, shift to a more generous annual cost-of-living adjustment that reflects spending by seniors and set a new minimum benefit at 25 percent above the poverty line. It also would cut taxes for millions of retirees by boosting significantly the threshold for taxation of benefits.

The plan raises revenue by gradually increasing the payroll tax rates that fund the program. The rate hikes would begin in 2019, and by 2042, workers and employers would pay 7.4 percent each, instead of the current 6.2 percent.

Larson, a Connecticut Democrat, also proposes changes to the payroll tax cap for very wealthy beneficiaries. Currently, payroll tax is collected only on wages up to $127,200; the plan would start collecting taxes again on wages above $400,000. That exempts more income than many earlier expansion plans, which either removed the cap entirely or resumed taxation at $250,000.

The payroll tax cap feature played an important role in boosting support for expansion legislation, according to Max Richtman, CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, a progressive advocacy group that supports the bill. “It brought many of the more conservative Democratic legislators on board,” he said.

Of course, the Larson bill is going nowhere in the Republican-controlled Congress, so Social Security reform will not happen before the 2018 midterm elections at the earliest - and perhaps much later than that. But that does not mean beneficiaries should worry about draconian cuts in 2034.

Even if reform is not achieved by 2034, Biggs thinks the problem likely would be solved at the 11th hour through tax increases - simply because benefit cuts must be enacted and phased in over long periods to give beneficiaries time to adjust.

”If they were going to do this by cutting benefits, it should have been enacted 20 years ago,“ he said. ”If you want to do it by raising taxes you want to wait as long as possible, so that you get to the point where the only solution is to put more money into the program.”

But the uncertainty on Social Security policy will continue to undermine public confidence in the program - and that is worrying. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking.

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Economics 400,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in