Chris Christie risks a generational debate on entitlements: Robert Samuelson
on April 24, 2015 at 12:00 PM, updated April 24, 2015 at 12:01 PM
By Robert J. Samuelson
WASHINGTON — If New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has his way, the unfolding presidential campaign will focus on generational fairness. It will seek to curb spending on the elderly — mainly Social Security and Medicare — without putting the elderly at risk. This debate would be good for the country, but whether the country can conduct it without an orgy of bombast and distortion is an open question.
In case you missed it, Christie gave a speech in New Hampshire in mid-April proposing the following:
–Social Security benefits would be gradually reduced for those with non-Social Security incomes above $80,000 and ended at incomes exceeding $200,000, a plan Christie said would affect less than 2 percent of beneficiaries.
–Social Security’s eligibility age would slowly be raised (2 months a year, beginning in 2022) to 69 for full benefits and 64 for early retirement (from the present 62); Medicare’s eligibility age would be raised from today’s 65 to 67 in 2040 and 69 in 2064.
–Wealthier retirees with incomes above $85,000, who already pay higher Medicare premiums, would have their premiums raised on a sliding scale so that beneficiaries with incomes above $196,000 would pay 90 percent of the premiums for Medicare Part B (doctors’ bills) and Part D (drug coverage). Presumably, this also would be phased in, though Christie gave no details.
–Medicaid — the federal-state health insurance program for the poor — would be cut by putting a ceiling on federal payments to states.
Let’s concede that Christie’s gambit is self-serving. His presidential prospects are said to lag. He strives to differentiate himself from the herd of Republican contenders. What better way to demonstrate “leadership” qualities than to tackle an issue that, according to conventional wisdom, is political suicide. It’s a high-risk/high-reward strategy.
https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/04/chris_christie_risks_a_generat.html
he will not win. it’s in the law books. this thinks he can just change the laws.
When you contribute less than $250K in to a $3 million PFRS pension in NJ, its generational theft. All of our fat cat PRFS retirees stopped work at an avegae age of 52 and immediately started drawing a pensions at 65% of their final comp which was inflated by 10% longevity pay. How do we pay for this when they contributed less than 10% of their wages over the last 25 years for these benefits? Oh yeah, by borrowing from current and futuire PFRS members who are getting screwed. It’s all in the family though, right?