I was going to write about the effect of Social Security "reform" on my generation -- the late Baby Boomers with little in common of our far more numerous forebears, which I learned here years ago had been given the appellation "Generation Jones" -- the first targets of the rise in the age of "retirement" (or more properly, of retirement benefits. That was so depressing that I decided to give you something better: donuts. Yummy, yummy donuts. Tax-level donuts.
(Don't worry. That's a metaphor.)
The donut-related tax-related measure with which readers are probably most familiar is the much-hated "donut hole," more accurately known as the Medicare Part D coverage gap, which was eliminated as part of PPACA, the Obamacare bill. This pertained to the provision of reimbursements for pharmaceuticals under the "Medicare Part D" bill that Republicans gifted to pharmaceutical companies (and to a lesser extent seniors) during the Bush the Lesser Administration.
I'll describe how the Donut Hole worked, why it was hated, and what it has to do with Social Security below. Here's a hint: this diary is not about policy. A diary by DFA's Arshad Hasan on Tuesday. "Why Now is the Time to End the Social Security Tax Loophole" (which I encourage you to read before going on with this one, if you don't mind too much!) handled the policy portion of "what to do about Social Security" just fine.
The problem, as usual, is about politics. For the most part, we know what we should do. The trick is how to make it happen. This diary proposes such a trick. The same thing that made Medicare Part D such a political loser, if inverted, can make our position on Social Security reform a political winner.
Read More