THE US PUBLIC PENSION SYSTEM IN PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN DISCOURSE, 2016

• Authors: Fultz Elaine , Francis John
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

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 positions 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 pension 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.

Keywords

EN

US public pension system; achievements; possible futures; problems; presidential campaign discourse

• Publisher: Institute of Labor and Social Studies, Warsaw
• Journal: Polityka Społeczna
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 43
• Issue: 1 (12) OLD-AGE PENSION SYSTEMS OUTSIDE EUROPE
• Pages: 9–16

Contributors

author

Fultz Elaine

• Philadelphia, United States of America

author

Francis John

• Philadelphia, United States of America

References

• Bucknor, Ch., Baker, D. (2016), Still Work­ng Hard, CEPR, Wash­ng­on, DC.
• Buffie, N. (2016), CBO projects ris­ng wage inequal­ty, 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), Repubulicans 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 tradeoff 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.