Research by Author & Topic

Publications by C. Eugene Steuerle on Elderly

Despite decades of significant tax subsidies for pensions and retirement accounts, most Americans retire with little or no pension saving. This paper suggests that it is possible to create a "Super Simple" saving plan that would provide a basic, low-cost, easily administrable plan with the potential to increase significantly the retirement assets available to moderate- and middle-income individuals. This plan follows the lead of a new system about to be implemented in the United Kingdom, which features automatic contribution for employees who do not opt out, a significant government match, and simplification of existing rules amongst other elements.

Growing fiscal pressures and increasing life expectancy have prompted calls to raise retirement ages. Some fear this change might harm long-career, lower-wage workers. Tying retirement benefit eligibility to years of service might protect low-wage workers who start their careers early. But higher disability rates and greater employment volatility could offset lower-wage workers’ early labor force starts. Using survey data matched to administrative records, we describe how work histories vary by gender, education, and other characteristics. We find that years of service are not likely to effectively protect the lowest-wage workers, as those with the least education also work the least.

The authors of this paper—longtime federal budget and policy experts—were drawn together by a deep concern about the nation's long-term fiscal outlook. Despite diverse philosophies and political leanings, they found solid common ground and agree that unsustainable deficits in the federal budget threaten the health and vigor of the American economy and the first step toward establishing budget responsibility is to reform the budget decision process so that the major drivers of escalating deficits—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—are no longer on autopilot. The paper provides specific policy recommendations and outlines the reasons action is critical.

"Investing in Children" tracks trends in federal investment from 1965 to 2017 for children as compared against the nation as a whole. This appendix details our data sources, the programs we include, and the methodology used to estimate the percentage of all expenditures that went to children.

This brief charts U.S. federal spending on investment in total and for children from 1965 to 2017. Relative to GDP or domestic spending, total investment and investment in children—under almost any definition—fell over the 1965–2006 period, though with some recent rebounds. More important, projections of current policies show that overall government investment and especially investment in children are threatened to decline in relative and sometimes absolute importance, squeezed out mainly by faster, automatically growing programs that tend to favor consumption. These data raise the question of what relative priority the government should place on investment, and particularly investment in children.

We chart U.S. federal spending on investment in total and for children from 1965 to 2017. Five major categories can be considered -- some more so than others -- to be investment or to have investment components: education and research, work supports, social supports, physical capital, and defense investment. Relative to domestic spending, the most direct investment -- education and research -- for the nation as a whole, and crucially for children, fell over the 1970-2006 period though with some recent rebounds. More important, projections of current policies show that overall government investment and especially investment in children are threatened to decline in relative and sometimes absolute importance, squeezed out mainly by faster, automatically growing programs that tend to favor consumption. These data raise the question of what relative priority the government should place on investment, and particularly investment in children.

Fiscal policy is out of control. Programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, have design features that push up spending faster than the growth of revenues. It is time to change the course of the automatic pilot driving these programs. To do so, policymakers can develop “triggers” that automatically curb spending. Triggers will level the playing field between programs that have large automatic growth and those where growth or even maintenance of effort cannot be obtained without new legislation. The paper examines triggers employed to reform Social Security in other advanced democracies and explores design options for an optimal trigger.

In this Baltimore Sun commentary, senior fellow Eugene Steuerle argues that the democratic process is imperiled by retirement, health, and taxation promises that will be very difficult to keep.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have once again expanded the services provided under Medicare. New coverage of ultrasound monitoring of cardiac output today, new treatments for congestive heart failure yesterday, and, undoubtedly, some new cancer treatment tomorrow. New technology might even help reduce Medicare costs, though past history argues against that rosy result for most improvements. Getting more usually means paying more.

Social Security spouse and survivor benefits advantage single-earner families relative to dual-earner families paying the same total taxes. Our paper considers earnings sharing—through which husbands' and wives' earnings records are combined and averaged throughout their marriage when computing benefits—as well as other changes to spouse/survivor benefits, including caregiver credits and minimum benefits. All the roughly cost-equivalent packages examined improve adequacy and horizontal equity compared to current law. The earnings-sharing proposal, however, only reduced poverty with significant adjustments to the treatment of surviving spouses. The packages reveal tradeoffs among beneficiary groups, with particular tensions around work and marital status.