How to Really Cut Social Security

In 2008, Center for American Progress blogger Matthew Yglesias said of the Democratic think tank Third Way: "their domestic policy agenda is hyper-timid incrementalist bullsh[*]t." For that bit of strong opinion Yglesias was promptly emascula ... sorry, bigfooted by CAP's Jennifer Palmieri in a creepy "special note" about how CAP had "partnered" with Third Way and respected their "excellent work product" and looked forward to working with them in the future, etc..

If Yglesias was ever right about Third Way's H.T.I.B. tendencies, he's wrong now: Third Way has proposed radical, Australia-style means-testing for Social Security, in which those at the top (individuals making $200,000 or more) get no benefits. You wonder if CAP will acknowledge having "partnered" with them now. ...

P.S.: Bloomberg's story isn't clear on one fairly crucial bit of date—how much money Third Way thinks this fairly dramatic form of means-testing will save. My guess is a lot. We'll need to save a lot, not to rescue Social Security (which isn't in that bad shape) but to pay for Obama's universal health-care plan. What's a better use for our money: sending retirement checks to rich people or providing modern health care to everyone? ...

P.P.S.: Third Way's income cutoff may be a bit high, actually, if you really want to save trillions. The Australian means-test, as I recall, cold-turkeyed the richest one third of retirees. Since the elderly typically are not high earners, you'd think the top third would start way below $200,000 ... [via NewsAlert] 2:46 a.m.