In any case, I know some readers want to explore these issues more deeply. I’ve written a lot on Social Security since 1990–the demographic issues, the financial issues, and the long-term projections. I’ve also written more recently on health care issues–arguing against Obamacare (and health “insurance” more generally) in favor of health care. Today I’m going to provide links to some of this work, all easily accessible at the Levy Economics Institute (www.levy.org) and all written for a non-wonky audience. Here is a sample. I am not sure if the links will work for you, but if they don’t go to the Levy website, click on Scholars, click on my name, scroll down and click on “All Publications”, and then scroll down the list to find the listed publication.
Let me begin with what is perhaps the most detailed piece on the demographics of aging:
Working Paper No. 468 | August 2006
Global Demographic Trends and Provisioning for the Future
View MoreView Less
Policy Note 1999/8 | August 1999
More Pain, No Gain
View MoreView Less
Breaux Plan Slashes Social Security Benefits Unnecessarily
Neither the Breaux plan nor President Clinton’s proposal for “saving” Social Security promises much gain, but the Breaux plan, unlike the president’s proposal, would inflict real pain in the form of reduced benefits.
Does Social Security Need Saving?
View MoreView Less
Providing for Retirees throughout the Twenty-first Century
Projections of an impending crisis in financing Social Security depend on unduly pessimistic assumptions about basic demographic and economic variables. Moreover, even if the assumptions are accepted, the projected gap between Social Security revenues and expenditures would not constitute a “crisis” and could be eliminated with relatively simple adjustments when it occurs. The real issue regarding our ability to provide for retirees throughout the coming century is not the size of Social Security Trust Funds, but the size and distribution of the whole economic pie. When the issue is viewed in this light, it becomes clear that most proposals to “save” the system—locking away budget surpluses, investing the Trust Funds in the stock market, privatization, reduction of benefits—do not address the real problem of caring for future retirees. Solutions consistent with the true nature and scope of the problem lie not within the Social Security system itself but in the realm of a general fiscal policy aimed at ensuring the growth of the economy.
Does Social Security Need Saving?
View MoreView Less
Policy Note 2001/6 | June 2001
Killing Social Security Softly with Faux Kindness
Policy Note 2005/2| February 2005 Manufacturing a Crisis
The Ownership Society
View MoreView Less
Social Security Is Only the Beginning . . .
As his new term begins, President George W. Bush has been trying to focus his domestic agenda on what he calls the “ownership society,” a sweeping vision of an America in which more citizens would hold significant assets and be free to make their own choices about providing for their health care and retirement, and educating their children. L. Randall Wray, who has written for the Levy Institute on many topics, evaluates the premises and logic of this program in this new public policy brief.
Wray points out that much of the history of the Western world since the advent of liberalism has been marked by a gradual rise in the power of those who lack property. Some of the milestones in this progression include universal suffrage, regulation of business, and progressive taxation. Bush’s ownership society proposals, according to Wray, would result in a partial reversal of the progress of the last 250 years. The reason is that, while Bush’s plans would undoubtedly increase the choices and power of those who have property, they would fail to democratize ownership. Many gains to the wealthy would come at the expense of the poor, the sick, and the elderly.
The Ownership Society
View MoreView Less
The Case Against Intergenerational Accounting
View MoreView Less
The Accounting Campaign Against Social Security and Medicare
The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has proposed subjecting the entire federal budget to “intergenerational accounting”—which purports to calculate the debt burden our generation will leave for future generations—and is soliciting comments on the recommendations of its two “exposure drafts.” The authors of this brief find that intergenerational accounting is a deeply flawed and unsound concept that should play no role in federal government budgeting, and that arguments based on this concept do not support a case for cutting Social Security or Medicare.
The FASAB exposure drafts have not made a persuasive argument about basic matters of accounting, say the authors. Federal budget accounting should not follow the same procedures adopted by households or business firms because the government operates in the public interest, with the power to tax and issue money. There is no evidence, nor any economic theory, behind the proposition that government spending needs to match receipts. Social Security and Medicare spending need not be politically constrained by tax receipts—there cannot be any “underfunding.” What matters is the overall fiscal stance of the government, not the stance attributed to one part of the budget.
The Case Against Intergenerational Accounting: The Accounting Campaign Against Social Security and Medicare
View MoreView Less
Public Policy Brief Highlights No. 110A | April 2010
Toward True Health Care Reform
View MoreView Less
More Care Less Insurance
The United States has the most expensive health care system in the world, yet its system produces inferior outcomes relative to those in other countries. This brief examines the health care reform debate and argues that the basic structure of the health care system is unlikely to change, because “reform” measures actually promote the status quo. The authors believe that the fundamental problem facing the US health care system is the unhealthy lifestyle of many Americans. They prefer to see a reduced role for private insurers and an increased role for government funding, along with greater public discussion of environmental and lifestyle factors. A Medicare buy-in (“public option”) for people under 65 would provide more cost control (by competing with private insurance), help to solve the problem of treatment denial based on preexisting conditions, expand the risk pool of patients, and enhance the global competitiveness of US corporations—thus bringing the US health care system closer to the “ideal” low-cost, universal (single-payer) insurance plan.
The Trouble with Pensions
View MoreView Less
Toward an Alternative Public Policy to Support Retirement
Pension funds have taken a big hit during the current financial crisis, with losses in the trillions of dollars. In addition, both private and public pensions are experiencing significant funding shortfalls, as is the government-run Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which insures the defined-benefit pension plans of private American companies. Yeva Nersisyan and Senior Scholar L. Randall Wray argue that the employment-based pension system is highly problematic, since the strategy for managing pension funds leads to excessive cost and risk in an effort to achieve above-average returns. The average fund manager, however, will only achieve the risk-free return. The authors therefore advocate expanding Social Security and encouraging private and public pensions to invest only in safe (risk-free) Treasury bonds—which, on average, will beat the net returns on risky assets.
Toward True Health Care Reform: More Care, Less Insurance
View MoreView Less
The United States has the most expensive health care system in the world, yet its system produces inferior outcomes relative to those in other countries. This brief examines the health care reform debate and argues that the basic structure of the health care system is unlikely to change, because “reform” measures actually promote the status quo. The authors believe that the fundamental problem facing the US health care system is the unhealthy lifestyle of many Americans. They prefer to see a reduced role for private insurers and an increased role for government funding, along with greater public discussion of environmental and lifestyle factors. A Medicare buy-in (“public option”) for people under 65 would provide more cost control (by competing with private insurance), help to solve the problem of treatment denial based on preexisting conditions, expand the risk pool of patients, and enhance the global competitiveness of US corporations—thus bringing the US health care system closer to the “ideal” low-cost, universal (single-payer) insurance plan.
The Trouble with Pensions
View More