The US Public Pension System in Presidential Campaign Discourse, 2016

• Autorzy: Elaine Fultz , John Francis
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This paper examines the US public pension system - its current status, achievements, problems and possible futures - through the prism of the 2016 Presidential campaign. Its main source of information is political discourse during state primary elections and caucuses held by the Democratic and Republican parties in the months preceding their nomination of Presidential candidates. These events create a lively marketplace of ideas in which contenders for their party's nomination compete for the support of voters, organizations, and donors, who in turn seek to influence the contenders' platforms. In this election year, the range of contender posi-tions on public pensions is unusually wide and they have assigned different priorities to improving pension adequacy, restructuring the system to address new needs, establishing long-term financial balance, and who should bear the cost of the latter. The paper examines their discourse in three parts. Following the introduction, part I describes the US public pen-sion system and Americans' attitudes toward it. Part II presents the contenders' positions on pensions, including those to improve, maintain, and cut benefits. Included here is discussion of their approaches to pension finance as well. Part III highlights patterns in the contenders' views, considers how they would alter US pension principles and practices, and ends with some thoughts on policymaking after the election. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Pensions; Pension schemes; Election campaign

PL

Emerytury; System emerytalny; Kampania wyborcza

• Czasopismo: Polityka Społeczna
• Rocznik: 2016
• Numer: nr 1 (ang) Old-Age Pension Systems Outside Europe
• Strony: 9--16

Twórcy

autor

Elaine Fultz

• JMF Research Associates, Philadelphia, United States of America

autor

John Francis

• JMF Research Associates, Philadelphia, United States of America

Bibliografia

• Bucknor, Ch., Baker, D. (2016), Still Working Hard, CEPR, Washington, DC.
• Buffie, N. (2016), CBO projects rising wage inequality, CEPR Blogs, 19 February 2016, viewed at http://cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/cbo-projects-rising-wage-inequality [access 1.04.2016].
• Butler, S., Germanis, P. (1983), Achieving a Leninist Strategy for Social Security, The Cato Institute, Washington, DC, http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1983/11/cj3n2-11.pdf [access 1.04.2016].
• Clingman, M., Burkhalter, K., Chaplain, Ch. (2015), Replacement rates for hypothetical retired workers, Actuarial Note, No. 2015.9, July 2015. Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland.
• Krugman, P. (2015), Republicans against Retirement, "New York Times", 17 August.
• Morrissey, M. (2016), The State of American Retirement, Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC.
• National Academy of Social Insurance (2015), Americans make hard choices on Social Security: A survey of trade-off analysis, viewed at: https://www.nasi.org/research/2014/report-americans-make-hard-choices-social-security-survey-tr  [access 1.04.2016].
• Page, B., Bartels, L., Seawright, J. (2013), Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans, "Perspectives in Politics", March, Vol. 11, No. 1, p. 51-73.
• Whitman, K., Schoffner, D. (2011), The Evolution of Social Security's Taxable Maximum, Policy Brief No. 2011-02, Social Security Administration.