U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–585 2016

THE PRESIDENT’S AND OTHER BIPARTISAN 

ENTITLEMENT REFORM PROPOSALS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 23, 2013 

Serial No. 113–SS5 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan, Chairman 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TOM REED, New York 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JENNIFER M. SAFAVIAN, Staff Director and General Counsel 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas, Chairman 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of May 23, 2013 announcing the hearing .............................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Ed Lorenzen, Executive Director, The Moment of Truth Project, Committee 

for a Responsible Federal Budget ....................................................................... 73 

G. William Hoagland, Senior Vice President, Bipartisan Policy Center ............. 6 

Jason Fichtner, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center ...................... 20 

Leticia Miranda, Senior Policy Advisor, Economic Security Policy, National 

Council of La Raza ............................................................................................... 36 

Donald Fuerst, Senior Pension Fellow, American Academy of Actuaries ........... 47 

C. Eugene Steuerle, Ph.D., Institute Fellow, Urban Institute ............................. 59 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

RetireSafe, statement .............................................................................................. 115 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Donald Fuerst .......................................................................................................... 95 

Eugene Steuerle ....................................................................................................... 98 

Jason Fichtner ......................................................................................................... 102 

Jason Fichtner, attachment .................................................................................... 106 

William Hoagland .................................................................................................... 108 

Ed Lorenzen ............................................................................................................. 110 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
(1) 

THE PRESIDENT’S AND OTHER BIPARTISAN 

ENTITLEMENT REFORM PROPOSALS 

THURSDAY, MAY 23, 2013 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:29 a.m., in Room 

B–318, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Sam Johnson [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
2 

HEARING ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

Chairman Johnson Announces Hearing on the 

President’s and Other Bipartisan Entitlement 

Reform Proposals 

Washington, May 2013 

U.S. Congressman Sam Johnson (R–TX), Chairman of the House Committee on 

Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, today announced the third in 

a series of hearings on the President’s and other bipartisan entitlement reform proposals. This hearing will focus on proposed adjustments to Social Security benefits, 

as included in the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget, the report by the National 

Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, and the report of the Bipartisan 

Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force. The hearing will take place on 

Thursday, May 23, 2013, in B–318 Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 9:30 a.m. 

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this 

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization 

not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Subcommittee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Social Security Act (P.L. 74–271), signed into law by President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt on August 14, 1935, established the original retirement age of 65 for all 

retired workers. The early retirement age of 62, which allows workers to claim benefits earlier but permanently reduces the monthly level, was established first for 

women only in the Social Security Amendments of 1956 (P.L. 84–880) and for men 

in the Social Security Amendments of 1961 (P.L. 87–64). The Social Security 

Amendments of 1983 (P.L. 98–21) gradually increased the full retirement age, 

reaching 67 for those born in 1960 and later. Life expectancy for a person at age 

65 has increased from 12.7 years in 1935 to 19 years today. 

The Social Security Amendments of 1977 (P.L. 95–216) enacted the new benefit 

formula, under which benefit amounts are determined by applying a three-tiered 

formula to the monthly average of the highest 35 years of wage indexed earnings. 

The benefit formula is designed to replace a certain percentage of a worker’s career 

earnings and is very progressive, replacing 90 percent of lower earnings and only 

15 percent of higher earnings. As a result, retirees who had lower earnings throughout their careers have more of their average lifetime earnings replaced than retirees 

with higher career earnings. 

Bipartisan proposals to adjust benefits have included increasing both the full and 

early retirement ages to account for increases in life expectancy, including a hardship exemption from retirement age increases for certain workers, indexing the benefit formula to account for increases in longevity, allowing beneficiaries to receive 

up to half of their benefits beginning at age 62, slowing the growth of benefits for 

higher lifetime earners, increasing benefits for low lifetime earners, and increasing 

benefits for long-time beneficiaries. 

In announcing the hearing, Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson (R–TX) stated, 

‘‘At this hearing we will carefully examine the impacts of bipartisan proposals to adjust benefits for future beneficiaries. With Social Security already in the red, Americans know the longer we wait to fix Social Security, 

the tougher it will be to do so. It’s time we work together to make sure Social Security is there for today’s workers and their children and grandchildren.’’ 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
3 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will examine bipartisan proposals to adjust Social Security benefits 

and their impacts on the program’s finances, beneficiaries, workers, and the economy. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you 

would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested information. ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by the close 

of business on Thursday, June 6, 2013. Finally, please note that due to the 

change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical 

problems, please call (202) 225–1721 or (202) 225–3625. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing 

record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, 

but we reserve the right to format it according to our guidelines. Any submission 

provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for 

the printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for written 

comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will 

be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word or WordPerfect 

format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official 

hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days’ notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov

f 

/. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning and welcome to the third 

hearing in the Committee’s series on the President’s and other bipartisan entitlement reform proposals. I appreciate all of you being 

here. Workers have worked hard, played by the rules. 

Workers have earned the right to a secure retirement that no one 

can take away, yet unless Congress acts to protect and preserve Social Security, beginning in 2033, Social Security will be unable to 

pay full benefits, according to the Board of Trustees. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
4 

Here is why Social Security has to be fixed. Under Social Security, workers’ payroll taxes aren’t saved in the worker’s own retirement account. Instead, their taxes are immediately used to pay 

benefits for today’s retirees. This kind of system works when many 

people are paying in and very few collecting benefits. In the 1950s, 

for instance, there were 16 workers paying for each retiree collecting benefits, but today, families are having fewer children and 

people are living longer. As a result, even though the number of 

workers is growing, the number of retirees is growing much faster. 

Today there are just over three workers supporting each retiree. In 

the future there will be less than two. 

Back in 2008 the first baby boomers started collecting retirement 

benefits. Costs rose quickly, and 2 years later in 2010, Social Security began running permanent cash flow deficits, reaching $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years. And those deficits will grow larger and 

very fast. 

When today’s 47-year-old workers reach their full retirement age 

in 2033, they and everyone else already receiving benefits face a 25 

percent cut unless Congress does its job. 

Fixing Social Security is a serious challenge. If we wait, it will 

become a crisis. The sooner we act, the sooner changes can be 

phased in gradually over a number of years. If we fail to act, future 

generations will be faced with changes that are sudden and even 

larger. 

Today our witnesses include representatives from two bipartisan 

groups who have taken a hard look at Social Security and come up 

with ways to fix it. It wasn’t easy work, but they know we can’t 

afford to wait. Their two plans have a lot in common. They would 

slow the growth of benefits for higher earners, take into account 

the fact people are living longer, and make important changes to 

improve benefits for some of those poorly served by the current system. 

Since these plans were written, Social Security’s 10-year cash 

flow deficit has increased by over 450 percent. Across-the-board 

cuts will occur 7 years sooner, and Social Security’s long-term 

shortfall is almost 60 percent larger. It is unfair and wrong to leave 

with our kids and grandkids a Social Security system that can’t 

pay full promised benefits. 

The good work of Simpson-Bowles and the Bipartisan Policy Center Debt Reduction Task Force shows us there are bipartisan solutions to fix Social Security, and as I have said before, the President 

likes to say if we agree on a policy, then we should act and not let 

our differences hold us up. Today we will again carry out our responsibility to every American to closely examine each bipartisan 

policy option. When we agree, we ought to act, and we will. 

I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Becerra, for any opening statement you care to make. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think we can 

all agree on some basics. First, Social Security has never contributed a penny to our current deficit or to our national debt. So any 

changes to Social Security should be solely to address its long-term 

challenges and not to make Social Security pay for the debts run 

up by tax cuts for the rich or two unpaid-for wars. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
5 

Second, Americans support Social Security. They have earned it 

through their weekly payroll contributions, and they are counting 

on their elected representatives to protect it as well. 

And finally, at least for me, the America I grew up knowing and 

loving has always risen to the challenge of building a better place 

for our children, providing for that in any way possible, whether 

that means college, a strong and secure Nation, or Social Security 

once we retire. We build; we don’t tear down in America. 

And so here we go, Social Security has never contributed a penny 

to our current deficit or debt. I want to emphasize that. Social Security today has $2.7 trillion in Treasury certificates that have 

never been used and are available for those who need retirement, 

to go into retirement or are disabled, or if you happen to have lost 

your parent who was a worker, you then as a survivor get to receive Social Security benefits. $2.7 trillion. 

And I would like to show a chart at this stage that I think proves 

that Americans not only have supported Social Security, but continue to support Social Security today, overwhelmingly, and they 

are counting on their elected representatives to protect Social Security. As you can see from the chart, even though lots of folks have 

heard a lot of scare talk about Social Security being bankrupt or 

going under, and sometimes Americans’ confidence may fluctuate, 

the reality is this, as this chart shows, Social Security has always 

had the confidence of the American public. 

How many people in America think Social Security spends about 

the right amount, or maybe it doesn’t give quite enough in its benefits? Well, that has always hovered somewhere around 89 percent 

of Americans who think it is too little or about right. Less than 10 

percent of Americans since 1984 have said that Social Security 

pays out too much, that it is too generous. And so support for Social Security is strong. The vast majority of Americans are there. 

A recent poll by the National Academy of Social Insurance found 

that 74 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of people born after 

1980 said they wanted to preserve Social Security even if it meant 

working people would have to pay a little more in taxes. 

Now, the America I know can and will rise to this challenge of 

meeting Social Security’s future challenges. There is no question 

that Social Security will need to make some changes to ensure its 

future that is vibrant, but in the America I know, we wouldn’t start 

by planning to cut benefits for seniors, disabled workers, and children who have lost their parent. America’s workers deserve much 

better than that. The vast majority of Social Security recipients, 

both today and in the future, have very modest incomes and few 

resources. For six out of 10 retirees in our country, Social Security 

provides the majority of their income. 

There are some who seem to suggest that deep Social Security 

cuts are inevitable, so we should just make them now. That to me 

is discouraging, and that is certainly not the America I grew up in. 

To give up and to say that we can’t assure a measure of dignity 

to those who have worked hard all their lives, paid into Social Security, and were planning on it for retirement, that we have no 

choice? No. 

Let me show you a different chart. Here is the average benefit 

on the far right that you see that Americans earn from Social SecuVerDate Sep 11 2014 16:30 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 089585 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\89585.XXX 89585

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
6 

rity. On average, about $14,000 per retiree comes from Social Security and a little less if you are a disabled worker. Now, that is quite 

a bit less than what the average worker today makes, which is 

about $50,000, as you see on the chart. But then look at the most 

fortunate in our country, the most well-off people in society, the top 

1 percent of workers earned five times as much as the average 

worker in America and 18 times as much as the average Social Security beneficiary who is retired. When you get to the stratosphere, 

the top one-tenth of 1 percent, they made an average of 41 times 

what the typical Social Security retiree gets, and if you look all the 

way to the left, you see what an average CEO in America would 

make, about $12 million in 2011, on average. On average. That is 

869 times what the average retiree receives from Social Security. 

So I ask you, where shall we start as we think about how to address Social Security’s challenges in the future? Should we take it 

from the Social Security beneficiaries’ modest checks or should we 

look to those most fortunate and see if they can contribute a little 

bit more? Should we ask the widow to give up her modest benefit 

or ask the CEO to pitch in a little bit more? 

Social Security will face a challenge, there is no doubt. But in 

America, at least the America I know and love, we can rise to this 

challenge. And, so Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to this 

hearing. I think we need a lot, we can learn a lot from the witnesses who are here, and we need to listen quite a bit, so I am anxious to hear their testimony, and I yield back. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. I would like to just state that Congress has been raising 

taxes on workers since the beginning of the program, and it still 

hasn’t worked. In 1935 the tax rate for employers and employees 

was just 1 percent on earnings up to $3,000 a year. Congress has 

raised the payroll tax rate 14 times since then. 

As is customary, any member is welcome to submit a statement 

for the hearing record. Before we move on to our testimony, I want 

to remind our witnesses to please limit your statements to 5 minutes. However, without objection, all of the written testimony will 

be made a part of the hearing record. 

We have one witness panel today, one of whom is stuck in traffic, 

as I was this morning, so I understand that. G. William Hoagland, 

senior vice president, Bipartisan Policy Center; Jason Fichtner, 

Ph.D., senior research fellow with Mercatus Center; Leticia Miranda, senior policy adviser, the Economic Security Policy, National 

Council of La Raza; Donald Fuerst, senior pension fellow, American 

Academy of Actuaries; and Eugene Steuerle, Ph.D., institute fellow, 

Urban Institute; and Mr. Lorenzen isn’t here, so Mr. Hoagland, I 

am going to recognize you. Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF G. WILLIAM HOAGLAND, SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT, BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER 

Mr. HOAGLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Becerra, Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the recommendations to the Social Security program made by 

the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Domenici-Rivlin Debt Reduction 

Task Force. I was privileged to serve on that bipartisan group that 

released its recommendations in November of 2010. Our report 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
7 

came out about the same time as the President’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform upon which Dr. Rivlin 

also served along with Mr. Becerra. 

The Domenici-Rivlin report was designed as a total plan of policies to spur economic recovery and to reduce our debt to GDP down 

to our goal then was 60 percent by the year 2020. But as we examined the various options to address the Social Security program, 

the overarching question was not how do we produce savings for 

the program, but rather more, how can we improve the current system, make it fairer, and ensure that it is a viable program around 

for decades to come. 

Our benefit recommendations were four. The first was indexing 

the Social Security benefit formula to account for longevity; the second was to increase the progressivity of the benefit formula; the 

third was to provide a more robust minimum benefit; and the 

fourth was to implement a benefit bump-up for older beneficiaries. 

Now, related to the first recommendation on indexing of longevity, the biggest issue confronting Social Security today, and of 

course it is due to demographics. As the large cohort of baby 

boomers, of which I am one, retire, we will collect benefits for 

longer than previous age cohorts. Our task force felt that any viable reform package must confront this trend head on. We also understood that certain individuals, particularly those working in 

hard industries, such as mining, fisheries, loggers, firefighters, 

steel mills, among others, they may want and they may need to 

take early retirement at age 62, unlike those of us who work for 

soft think tanks. 

Therefore, beginning in 2023 instead of indexing both the early 

and the normal retirement age to longevity, meaning that they 

would increase by 1 month every 2 years, we proposed to index the 

benefit formula for increases in life expectancy. This would ensure 

that those seniors who could not remain in the labor force well into 

their 60s would retain the option to begin collecting reduced benefits at age 62. 

Now, specifically the provision would index the bend points to 

longevity by reducing those factors starting in 2023 to reflect the 

ratio of, the life expectancy at 67 measured in 2018 to the life expectancy at 67 for 4 years before the initial benefit eligibility. This 

change in life expectancy is estimated today to reduce the benefit 

levels by about three-tenths of a percent a year, and this policy of 

indexing the benefit formula to longevity comprised nearly half of 

the savings achieved by the plan to get to actuarial balance. 

The second recommendation was a modest increase in the progressivity of the benefit formula. Currently, as you know, monthly 

wages above roughly $4,800, the top most bend point are replaced 

at 15 percent. We recommended gradually phasing that down over 

a decade to 10 percent. 

The third recommendation related to the minimum benefit. Our 

task force proposed to provide a special minimum benefit tied to 

133 percent of the Federal poverty level for retirees who have at 

least 30 years of creditable work. 

Fourth, we similarly agreed to the importance of providing some 

protection to beneficiaries from the danger of outliving their savings, and to address this, we suggested a benefit bump of 1 percent 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
8 

of the average monthly Social Security benefit to be administered 

each year between the ages of 81 and 85, and these two proposals, 

the minimum benefit and the old age bump-up, would be integral 

to one of the task force’s other proposals, I realize that is not the 

purpose of this hearing, and that was indexing the cost of living 

adjustment to the chain weighted price index. Further, beginning 

in 2020, the task force also proposed that newly hired State and 

local government workers be incorporated into the program. 

Finally, and again, a subject for another day, our total package 

recommended restoring the taxable maximum to cover 90 percent 

of all earnings, and as part of our task force’s broader tax reform, 

we proposed to cap and phase out the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance, which would bring additional payroll receipts into the trust fund. 

The Domenici-Rivlin Task Force members concluded that this 

package would accomplish sustainable solvency, and it was verified 

by the chief actuary of Social Security. It would do this in a progressive manner, protecting vulnerable beneficiaries and distributing the burden in an evenhanded and responsible manner among 

taxpayers and retirees while assuring Social Security will be there 

for our children and our grandchildren in the years to come. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. I appreciate your comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoagland follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
9 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.001
10 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.002
11 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.003
12 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.004
13 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.005
14 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.006
15 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.007
16 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.008
17 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.009
18 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.010
19 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.011
20 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Fichtner, you are now recognized for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JASON FICHTNER, PH.D., SENIOR RESEARCH 

FELLOW, MERCATUS CENTER 

Mr. FICHTNER. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Becerra, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify here today. My name is Jason 

Fichtner, and I am a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center 

at George Mason University where I research fiscal and budgetary 

issues, including Social Security. I am also an adjunct professor at 

Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins University, and Virginia 

Tech, where I teach courses in economics and public policy. All 

opinions here today are my own and do not necessarily reflect the 

views of my employers. 

For my oral remarks, I want to briefly discuss how various features of Social Security, from the technical details of the benefit 

formula to the benefit eligibility at age 62 to the nonworking 

spouse benefit all act to encourage early retirement and as a disincentive to continued work. 

Most analyses of Social Security have concluded that its current 

design offers substantially negative incentives for work, especially 

for younger seniors and for secondary household earners. Research 

has found that Social Security’s return on payroll tax contributions 

by those age 62 to 65 is a negative 49.5 percent, meaning that the 

program literally pays back just pennies in additional benefits for 

each additional dollar contributed. Other research has found that 

the broader array of Federal laws strongly inhibits continued work 

by seniors, with disincentives growing stronger as they age. It is 

notable that labor force participation did not decline for those 

younger than 65 until Social Security’s early eligibility age of 62 

was established. After the creation of the EEA, labor force participation by males age 55 to 64 also began to trend downward, dropping over 20 percent, from 87.3 percent in 1960 to 67.7 percent in 

1990. 

Workforce participation trends among older workers are not driven primarily by issues of physical incapacity. Labor force participation among males over 65 was much higher in the mid 20th century than it is now, despite substantial gains in national health 

and longevity since then. Incentives have played a much greater 

role. The design of the basic Social Security benefit formula imposes net incremental income losses on those extending their careers. The primary reason for the work disincentive is that Social 

Security’s benefit formula is progressive while also based on a 

worker’s top 35 years of earnings on average. 

Indeed, someone who takes a part-time transition job on the way 

to full retirement may well pay a full year’s worth of additional 

taxes while receiving no additional benefit credits whatsoever. This 

is a substantial work disincentive at precisely the time when a 

worker is likely to make a retirement decision. Social Security’s 

early retirement age of 62 is actually the most common age of benefit claiming. In fact, over 70 percent of beneficiaries take advantage of the opportunity to claim Social Security retirement benefits 

before the normal retirement age, despite receiving lower monthly 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
21 

benefits by doing so. Early retirement is only certain to make beneficiaries better off in the short run. The reduction of monthly benefits that accompanies early claims also results in net lifetime benefit reductions for those who live to especially advanced ages, often 

a time in life when beneficiaries are most likely to rely on Social 

Security benefits to pay their expenses. 

Also, Social Security specifically provides a disincentive to taxpaying work by more than one earner per household. Incremental 

returns on taxes paid by women have been estimated at negative 

32 percent relative to what they would receive by staying out of the 

paid workforce altogether and instead often collecting the nonworking spouse benefit. As a general rule, Social Security aggressively distributes income from two-earner married couples to oneearner married couples, penalizing a household decision to have 

both spouses work and contribute payroll taxes. 

A medium-wage two-earner couple both born in 1955 can expect 

to receive back only 80 cents from Social Security of each dollar 

contributed, whereas a one-earner couple can expect to receive 

$1.39. Much of the original welfare system was designed to support 

single earner families. Today, 61 percent of married women participate in the labor force compared to only 32 percent in 1960. Social 

Security needs to reflect the evolving workplace and not penalize 

two-earner couples. 

It is unsurprising that our future economic growth outlook is depressed by current projections for labor force participation, relative 

to what would be the case if more of our national gains in longevity 

and health were converted into longer periods of taxpaying work. 

Extending workforce participation would pay dividends for individual seniors and for the economy. 

With age 62 now the most popular age to claim benefits, raising 

the EEA would necessarily delay many claims and would likely correlate to continued employment. Researchers estimate that raising 

the EEA to 65 would increase the long-run GDP by 3 or 4 percent. 

Another reform would be to offer the full retirement credits as a 

lump sum option, which could potentially provide an incentive to 

continued working without additional financing costs to the system. 

I would also point out that you could change the benefit formula 

from instead of being on 35 years of work history to looking at an 

average and doing it per year. This would help take care of complications caused by the windfall elimination provision and government pension offset. 

Others have suggested that payroll tax relief be offered to seniors. We should be careful if we do this, but the overall positive effect that such a policy can have on labor participation by seniors 

should not be dismissed. Thank you for your time and opportunity 

to testify today. I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fichtner follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
22 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.012
23 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.013
24 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.014
25 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.015
26 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.016
27 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.017
28 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.018
29 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.019
30 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.020
31 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.021
32 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.022
33 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.023
34 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.024
35 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.025
36 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Lorenzen found his way through traffic, but I am going to come back to you, since we have already 

started. 

Ms. Miranda, you are welcome. Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF LETICIA MIRANDA, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, 

ECONOMIC SECURITY POLICY, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA 

RAZA 

Ms. MIRANDA. Thank you for inviting me to speak with you 

today. I am a senior policy adviser at NCLR. NCLR has been working to advance retirement security among Hispanic Americans for 

over a decade, and my work is centered on this topic. 

Social Security serves 56 million retirees, disabled adults, and 

survivors of deceased workers and their families. The focus of today’s hearing is to discuss options to strengthen Social Security so 

that this critical program can continue providing benefits into the 

future. In this regard, I want to make three key points: 

First, Social Security benefits are modest yet critical to most seniors, especially because pensions are becoming weaker. Second, 

most—the proposed benefits will cause deep harm to a vast majority of seniors. Third, we need meaningful benefit enhancements for 

the most vulnerable. 

I will close my remarks with some principles for reform. First, 

Social Security provides modest benefits that are very important to 

those who receive them. The average Social Security retiree benefit 

last year was approximately $14,800. Seniors rely heavily on their 

benefits. Two-thirds of beneficiaries rely on Social Security for at 

least 50 percent of their income, and one-third rely on it for almost 

all of their income. Among seniors of color, 55 percent of Hispanics, 

49 percent of African-Americans, and 42 percent of Asians rely on 

Social Security for almost all of their income. 

Low-income workers face inadequate benefits. Social Security replaces only 40 percent of prior earnings for low-income workers 

who retire at age 62. Pension coverage is getting weaker. Pension 

coverage among private sector workers has fallen from 50 percent 

in 1979 to 42 percent now. American men have lost the most 

ground over this time period. 

The quality of pension coverage has also declined. Risky, inadequate 401(k)-style plans have replaced more secure defined benefit 

plans, and Americans are not saving enough in their 401(k)s. More 

and more, the only stable form of retirement income that most people can count on is Social Security. Given all of this, our Nation 

should not reduce Social Security benefits. Yet many ideas are 

being proposed to cut Social Security benefits. I will talk about two 

of these harmful proposals. 

First, the partial price indexing option deeply cuts benefits for 

seniors with already modest income. Under one PPI plan, the average monthly benefit would fall from $1,250 to less than $900 per 

month. Second, increasing the retirement age or enacting longevity 

indexing also cuts benefits for all workers, including those with the 

lowest incomes. Each 1-year increase in the statutory retirement 

age is equivalent to a benefit cut of approximately 7 percent. 

The most important problem with these proposed benefit cuts is 

that vulnerable people will be pushed into greater poverty and 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
37 

hunger. NCLR held six town halls with Latino seniors in 2011 to 

hear their views on Social Security’s future. One senior in Los Angeles, who spoke from his wheelchair, said he lives alone on $750 

per month, and he cannot afford to buy food after paying for rent 

and other bills. He relies on local food banks to survive. People like 

him cannot afford further reductions to their already inadequate 

benefits. Basic living expenses do not decline simply because the 

overall population is living longer. 

My third major point is that we do need benefit enhancements 

for the lowest income workers, but these need to be meaningful. 

Benefit increases that are only proposed to lessen the impact of a 

benefit cut do not constitute a benefit improvement. Neither does 

structuring a benefit improvement so that few people will qualify. 

Lastly, I would offer a few principles to keep in mind as you approach reform. First, maintain what works with Social Security. 

For example, don’t make it a means-tested program, and keep it 

universal. Second, include revenue as part of the solution to get to 

long-term solvency. Americans will support this, as many surveys 

show. Revenue increases can make harmful benefit cuts unnecessary. Third, truly improve benefits so that low-income workers can 

retire with benefits that keep them out of poverty and protect low 

and moderate income people from any benefit cuts. Thank you. I 

am happy to answer any questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Miranda follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
38 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.026
39 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.027
40 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.028
41 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.029
42 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.030
43 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.031
44 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.032
45 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.033
46 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.034
47 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Fuerst, you are welcome here and 

please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD FUERST, SENIOR PENSION FELLOW, 

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ACTUARIES 

Mr. FUERST. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Becerra, and 

distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to assist in your examination of bipartisan proposals to adjust Social Security benefits. I am here on 

behalf of the American Academy of Actuaries, where I am the Senior Pension Fellow. The Academy is the nonpartisan association 

representing all actuaries in the United States on public policy 

issues. My statement will focus on retirement age. 

Americans are living longer. Of particular relevance to Social Security, the life expectancy of the elderly is increasing. A longer life 

creates numerous benefits for individuals but brings with it an expensive challenge—how to provide financial security for our seniors. Simply put, the longer someone lives, the more benefits Social 

Security must pay. Since 1940, the life expectancy of a 65-year-old 

has increased 6 years for both males and females, and we expect 

this trend to continue. 

An increase in longevity among the elderly, without a corresponding change in the full retirement age, actually constitutes 

an increase in lifetime benefits. Although the monthly amount a retiree receives is unchanged, the number of payments increases with 

longer life spans. 

Raising the full retirement age addresses Social Security’s longrange financial problems while responding to changing demographic factors. In particular, raising the full retirement age will 

compensate for increases in longevity, preserve the current benefit 

formula, increase labor force participation, and preserve disability 

benefits. 

The Academy supports retirement age changes but does not advocate a specific proposal. An increase in the retirement age should 

not be the sole solution to the imbalance in the system. Potential 

methods for increasing the full retirement age include both fixed 

schedule and indexing methods. The Simpson-Bowles report includes a proposal to index both full and early retirement ages to 

increases in longevity, and a hardship exemption for workers who 

cannot continue working past age 62 but do not qualify for disability benefits. 

The Bipartisan Policy Center proposed adjusting benefits for longevity by decreasing the formula as people live longer. This method 

could produce the same benefit amounts as a change in the full retirement age. However, it does not deliver the same message to 

American workers as an increased retirement age, which signals 

workers that they can and should continue in the labor force. 

We recognize that there are obstacles to raising the full retirement age. This would have a disproportionate effect on low-wage 

workers because longevity increases are not uniform across all demographic groups. Additionally, jobs may not be readily available 

for all older workers. But there are targeted policy options that 

might address these problems, including liberalizing disability benefits for older workers, revising the early retirement factors to proVerDate Sep 11 2014 16:30 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 089585 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\89585.XXX 89585

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
48 

vide a lesser reduction on benefits below the first bend point, enhanced job training and incentives for employers to hire and retain 

older workers. 

Raising the early eligibility age beyond 62 should also be considered to encourage individuals to work longer, to help avoid the 

problem of inadequate benefits caused by early retirement reduction. This would not significantly change Social Security’s financial 

position. Forty-four percent of workers receive benefits at age 62, 

the most popular age for electing benefits, despite the larger benefits that are available at later ages. Retaining age 62 as the early 

retirement eligibility, or allowing partial benefits at age 62 is likely 

to result in many people selecting commencement at this early age, 

with a smaller benefit which may prove to be inadequate. 

Estimates show that the proportion of jobs that are physically demanding has shrunk to less than 8 percent of our workforce, and 

less than 20 percent of workers who retire early do so for health 

reasons. The problems of these groups could be addressed by other 

programs, and Social Security benefits could be designed to provide 

adequate lifetime income at appropriate ages. 

In closing, I again thank the subcommittee for this opportunity. 

Addressing Social Security’s solvency now permits more modest 

changes that Congress could phase in over many years. This would 

ensure that the system will continue to provide retirement security 

for generations to come. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fuerst follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
49 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.035
50 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.036
51 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.037
52 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.038
53 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.039
54 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.040
55 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.041
56 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.042
57 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.043
58 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.044
59 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Steuerle, welcome again. Please go 

ahead. 

STATEMENT OF C. EUGENE STEUERLE, PH.D., INSTITUTE 

FELLOW, URBAN INSTITUTE 

Mr. STEUERLE. Chairman Johnson, Members of the Committee, 

subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify before you. 

In my testimony, I provide a fairly lengthy set of proposals that follow principles that I believe apply to Social Security, but I don’t 

want to spend my brief 5 minutes here talking about them so much 

as to make a pitch with you that we want to do Social Security 

benefit reform, that is the subject of this hearing, regardless of the 

level of taxes you collect, regardless of the imbalances of the system, and that is because Social Security has increasingly failed to 

target its money towards, I think, needs that we would all agree 

are most important or even meet various principles such as equal 

justice under the law. 

So let me give you an example just in terms of lifetime benefits. 

A newly retiring average wage couple today will receive about 

$580,000 in Social Security benefits. That is what they would need 

in a bank account if it was to earn, which it won’t earn today, but 

it would earn about 2 percent in real interest rates. And if you add 

in Medicare, they are scheduled to get about $1 million in Social 

Security and Medicare benefits. That largely derives from the large 

number of years of benefits that are paid. 

But even if we thought that that was a level we had to maintain, 

mind you that in the budget as a whole, we are now cutting benefits in other programs for children, we are cutting programs for 

middle-income families, but in Social Security and Medicare, every 

year we bump up these lifetime benefits by about $20,000, so that 

if we take a couple retiring, say a couple that is in their 40s today, 

they are scheduled to get about $1.4 million in the Social Security 

and Medicare benefits versus the $1 million for the couple retiring 

today. That is where all the growth in government is going, even 

while we derail almost everything else that government is about. 

Now, there are other problems in Social Security. Social Security 

has really morphed into a middle-age retirement system. Typical 

couples now retire for close to three decades in terms of getting 

benefits, that is the longer living of the two. If people retired today 

for the same number of years as they did when physical demands 

of work were larger, that is, the retirement age of 68 that they retired on average in 1940, today they would be retiring at about age 

76. 

Meanwhile, all this pushing of more and more benefits to younger and younger ages relative to death means that fewer benefits, 

a smaller and smaller share of benefits are going to people who are 

truly old, which is the purpose of the program, and so soon close 

to one-third of adults will be on Social Security, retiring on average 

for about one-third of their adult lives. 

Now, Social Security did do a good job in reducing poverty in its 

early years, but in recent years, despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars more every year, it has only made very modest 

progress on this front. Meanwhile, in the midst of a recession, 

when we are worried about the nonemployment rate going up, the 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
60 

Social Security system encourages an increase in this nonemployment rate at the very time when our older members of our society 

are perhaps the most underused source of human capital in our 

economy and a group of people that we should be encouraging to 

work. 

And then, finally, along with this long list of failures, the failure 

to provide equal justice just permeates the system. It discriminates 

against single heads of households, often abandoned mothers, it 

discriminates against spouses with relatively low earnings, it discriminates against those who bear their children before age 40, 

which is when most people bear their children, it discriminates 

against long-term workers and many, many others for which I provide details. 

And then finally, as a couple other members of this panel have 

mentioned, the private retirement system also needs addressing because it leaves most elderly households very vulnerable. 

Unfortunately, the Social Security debate has largely proceeded 

on the basis of being for the box or against the box. We have to 

sort of be for Social Security or against Social Security. The contents of the box, as I say, deserve scrutiny regardless of the size 

of the system overall. 

So how might one break through this stalemate in a political 

way? While I applaud the efforts of the Simpson-Bowles Commission and the Bipartisan Policy Commission, I think we can go 

much further if we start with a basic set of principles and we just 

see where they lead us. Now some changes, by the way, would lead 

to an increase in benefits. Some changes might lead to a decrease 

in benefits, but we don’t want to decide them one at a time. We 

want to see how the aggregate pulls together. So inevitably balancing my way should proceed in the following order. 

So first consider reforms aimed at meeting Social Security’s primary purposes, let’s provide greater protections for those who are 

truly needy and for those who are truly old, let’s support the work 

and saving base that is necessary to undergird the system and provide the taxes we need, that means we have to encourage work, 

and let’s provide more equal justice for those suffering needless discrimination in the system. So some of the changes cost money, 

some raise money, but we shouldn’t address them one at a time. 

After we do these changes, then we should come in and adjust minimum benefits even further, I have some suggestions in, adjust the 

rate schedules, adjust the indexing of benefits, so then we hit our 

targets for distribution and our targets for final cost. 

Now, if you do what I say, we could work together across the 

aisle to fix up the system for the bottom half of the distribution and 

save, if you want to, that fight over whether higher income taxpayers are going to pay more taxes or if they are going to get reduced benefits, which is where the fight really leads. 

So my testimony, as I say, provides a detailed way of engaging 

this type of reform process. It is largely the logic that I followed 

when I served as economic coordinator of the Tax Reform Act of 

1986. I get called to testify all the time on how did we get this to 

work? Well, we started off to see where our principles led us, then 

we came back in, then we came back in and adjusted things like 

rate schedules, minimum benefits, things like that, to hit our disVerDate Sep 11 2014 16:30 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 089585 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\89585.XXX 89585

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
61 

tributional and revenue targets. It is the same type of suggestion 

I made to the Simpson-Bowles Commission on taxes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Your time has expired, can you close? 

Mr. STEUERLE. That is the end of my recommendations. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Steuerle follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
62 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.046
63 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.047
64 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.048
65 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.049
66 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.050
67 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.051
68 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.052
69 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.053
70 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.054
71 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.055
72 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.056
73 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Lorenzen, thank you for braving the 

traffic in Washington today. I had the same problem, so I understand it. Thank you, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF ED LORENZEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE 

MOMENT OF TRUTH PROJECT, COMMITTEE FOR A RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL BUDGET 

Mr. LORENZEN. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, 

Members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be before you 

again to talk about the recommendations of the final report of the 

Simpson-Bowles Commission regarding Social Security, particularly those regarding benefit formula and retirement age. I would 

also like to associate myself with all the comments of Mr. Steuerle, 

whose advice and writings had a major impact on the work of the 

Commission, even if we were not as aggressive as he would like. 

The executive order that created the Fiscal Commission charged 

the Commission with two mandates, one to identify policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term, but also to achieve 

fiscal sustainability over the long term. Commission members had 

differences of opinion of the role of Social Security in the mediumterm fiscal outlook, but there was a general consensus among Commission members that meeting the mandate of improving the longterm fiscal sustainability required looking at the Social Security 

system and making the Social Security program sustainably solvent. 

Therefore, the recommendations in that count Social Security reform in meeting deficit reduction in the near term but were important for long-term recommendations. In the report, we outlined the 

approach the Commission took this way: To save Social Security for 

the long haul, all of us must do our part. The most fortunate will 

have to contribute the most by taking lower benefits than scheduled and paying more in payroll taxes. Middle-income earners who 

are able to work will need to do so a little longer. At the same time, 

Social Security must do more to help reduce poverty among the 

very poor and the very old who need help the most. 

The provisions in the Commission’s report directly affecting benefits, including changes in the benefit formula, retirement age, and 

cost of living adjustments, among other changes were responsible 

for approximately 60 percent of the savings over 75 years, and the 

provisions related to revenues, increasing the taxable maximum 

faster than current law and requiring State and local workers to 

pay into the system were responsible for approximately 40 percent 

of the savings over 75 years, but if you look in the 75th year, the 

net increase in revenues would be—just 22 percent of the shortfall 

in the 75th year, and that is why we felt it was necessary to include changes in the benefit formula in the retirement age to make 

the program sustainably solvent. 

So the first area of benefit changes we recommended were gradually moving to a more progressive benefit formula, which would 

slow the benefit growth relative to the current law, particularly for 

workers with incomes above the median. Specifically, the plan 

would gradually phase in changes and replacement rates of 90, 32, 

and 15 percent under current law to 90, 30, 10, and 5 percent by 

2050, phased in over a 30-year period. The current 32 percent 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
74 

bracket would be split at the median income level and ultimately 

reduced to 30 percent, so there would be only a very modest change 

in the benefit formula for workers with incomes below the median 

level. 

Future retirees would receive higher benefits than can be provided under current law for most seniors, except for the highest 

earning workers. Because the bend point factors would continue to 

be wage indexed, full benefits would continue to grow faster than 

inflation for nearly all beneficiaries and grow nearly as fast as 

wages for those in the bottom 50 percent of income distribution. 

One of the Commission’s key principles was that Social Security 

must ensure the program will meet its basic mission to prevent 

people who can no longer work from falling into poverty. In order 

to achieve this goal, the Commission recommended creating a new 

minimum benefit, which would provide stronger poverty protections 

than current law, and reduce poverty among seniors relative both 

to current law scheduled benefits and payable benefits. 

The minimum benefit would provide a full career minimum wage 

worker with a benefit equal to 125 percent of poverty, and the minimum benefit would then be indexed to wages, which would provide 

substantially stronger poverty protection over time. 

Although the plan in the final report of the Commission would 

provide substantially higher benefits for most low-income workers, 

we did find that there were unintended consequences with a slight 

reduction in median benefit for workers in the bottom quintile, and 

the Commission cochairs committed to the members of the Commission to identifying changes to address that concern, and we 

spent a great deal of time over the last couple of years looking at 

ways to tweak the minimum benefit and the benefit formula in 

order to do so. 

I have outlined those changes in my testimony, and I would say 

that with those changes, we would have substantially stronger poverty protections than current law, and relative to payable benefits 

would have 50 percent reduction in poverty and relative to scheduled benefits a 10 percent reduction. One of the key lessons I also 

learned in this process was the importance of looking at workers 

with intermittent work histories who often have—were most likely 

to fall short of the adequate benefits and not always protected by 

minimum benefit provisions, but in doing so, it is important to distinguish between those who truly are low-income workers and 

those who simply look like they are a low-income worker based on 

the Social Security income calculations, but in fact, were relatively 

affluent because they had a great deal of earnings over their lifetime that were not covered by Social Security for working abroad, 

uncovered employment, and the like. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Can you close it down? 

Mr. LORENZEN. Certainly. Finally, we had increases in the retirement age, we indexed the retirement age to longevity. Both the 

early retirement age and the normal retirement age under the current projections would be growing by 1 month every 2 years. However, it is—would actually be based off the increases in longevity, 

therefore if longevity is growing faster than currently projected, the 

age would increase more rapidly, but conversely if the longevity 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
75 

grows more slowly, the retirement age would grow less aggressively. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lorenzen follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
76 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.057
77 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.058
78 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.059
79 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.060
80 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.061
81 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.062
82 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.063
83 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.064
84 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.065
85 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.066
86 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.067
87 

Chairman JOHNSON. We are going to do something a little different here. I appreciate the testimony of all of you, and I am going 

to ask you this question: How soon should we act to fix Social Security? I would like each one of you to tell me. Mr. Lorenzen? 

Mr. LORENZEN. I would say that the sooner that Congress can 

act, it would be better. I can say this as someone who has been 

working on Social Security reform for much longer than I like to 

admit, that at each successive time, I have gone through the process of looking at the options of what you have to do on benefits and 

on revenues and the level of benefits you can provide at a certain 

level of taxes, that the choices become substantially more difficult 

each time I have gone through this process. 

Chairman JOHNSON. The question is how soon should we start? 

Mr. LORENZEN. And so, I think it needs to be starting soon. I 

think we have already waited too long. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Okay. Mr. Hoagland? 

Mr. HOAGLAND. You should start now, I agree that you should 

not hold up on this exercise. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Fichtner. 

Mr. FICHTNER. Congressman, 10 years ago. In some ways we 

are already too late. They are saying act now. We should have done 

this a long time ago. I used to go around saying that we could 

change benefits and hold current retirees harmless, we are getting 

closer to not being able to do that, so we are late, but definitely 

now. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I agree with you. I have been on this committee a long time myself and, you know, we can work. This is one 

thing we can work. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Look at me, I just got on this subcommittee. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, do you want to wait a while? Ms. 

Miranda? 

Ms. MIRANDA. The sooner the better. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Mr. Fuerst? 

Mr. FUERST. Acting sooner enables more options of a less drastic nature and allows changes to be phased in gradually. The 113th 

Congress should act to implement sustainable solvency. So I will 

give you to the end of next year. 

Chairman JOHNSON. How about the end of this year? 

Mr. FUERST. That would be even better. 

Chairman JOHNSON. We are working on it, let me tell you. Mr. 

Becerra and I have been working on it a long time together, and 

I think I agree with you. Mr. Steuerle? 

Mr. STEUERLE. Mr. Chairman, it is yesterday. Every year we 

wait, we put more and more of the burden on the young, and we 

who are a little bit older bear less and less of the burden, and that 

is simply unfair. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yeah, I know. You and I are worried 

about it, aren’t we? 

Mr. STEUERLE. Yes, I think you and I should pay—I mean, it 

is hard to adjust—everybody keeps saying we shouldn’t pay any of 

the costs, but in point of fact, I think we should bear some of it, 

too. 

Chairman JOHNSON. You know, in your testimony, Mr. 

Steuerle, you say Social Security was designed for a different era. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
88 

I agree. What are the impacts of putting close to a third of all 

adults on Social Security and the impact of the current law retirement age on workers, beneficiaries, and the economy? 

Mr. STEUERLE. Well, it simply means with a smaller work base 

to support the system, no matter what tax rate we agree upon, 

whether it is a higher rate or a lower rate, with fewer workers, we 

have got less money coming into the system, so in point of fact, although we are talking about benefit adjustments today, to the extent we can encourage more work through changes in the retirement age, through adjustments, backloading the system so a few 

more benefits are paid at old age, if we encourage work, we get 

more revenues at any tax rate. And, by the way, I should comment 

at the same time that given that our economy is now in a state of 

still high unemployment, we should really be looking at the nonemployment rate, and one of the major factors on the nonemployment rate is the encouragement of older people to retire. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, thank you for your comments, all of 

you. I appreciate your testimony. Is Xavier coming back? 

Mr. DOGGETT. He is coming back eventually, but he has a conflicting meeting. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Okay. Then Mr. Doggett, I am going to 

recognize you for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, thank you very much. Dr. Steuerle, I understand your testimony to be that whatever the committee might 

recommend on revenue changes, there must be some benefit 

changes? 

Mr. STEUERLE. [Nonverbal response.] 

Mr. DOGGETT. Is the converse also true? Because I understood 

that to be Mr. Hoagland’s findings of the Bipartisan Policy Committee and also on the Bowles-Simpson, that it is impossible to resolve this problem equitably unless there are additional revenues? 

Mr. STEUERLE. Well, personally I do support additional revenues for the system. I do have a problem, however, which goes beyond the Social Security issue is that for the most part, if I am 

going to raise additional revenues, particularly if I am going to 

raise additional revenues on higher income people, I don’t want 

that money to keep going for these elderly programs, they are absorbing all of the growth in government. So I have this dilemma. 

While I think revenues is part of our broader budgetary issues, I 

don’t know that I want to keep devoting additional taxes and revenues to supporting elderly programs at the cost of programs for 

younger people. 

So I, therefore, confine the extent to which I would have tax increases in Social Security, which is not the same thing as the extent to which I would confine tax increases outside of Social Security. 

Mr. DOGGETT. So you are basically agreeing with the SimpsonBowles and the bipartisan policy recommendations that we will not 

get our national debt in shape unless we have some additional revenues to go along with this, but you don’t necessarily support additional revenues for Social Security specifically? 

Mr. STEUERLE. I do support some additional revenues for Social Security. I actually—like the Commission’s, I would bump up 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
89 

the taxable maximum back up to approximately 90 percent of 

wages, so I do actually support that type of change. 

Mr. DOGGETT. I got the impression from your testimony that to 

some extent, looking at Social Security changes is an all-or-nothing 

proposition, that there has to be broad comprehensive change along 

the lines of your policy objectives, not doing it a single item at a 

time, such as cost of living or retirement age. Is that your position? 

Mr. STEUERLE. Yes, Mr. Doggett. Let me give you an example 

with the retirement age. The simple fact that we all get now about, 

say, 6 more years of benefits than—that is actually we take about 

11 or 12 because we retire earlier, but if we didn’t retire earlier, 

we get about 6 or 7 more years of benefits. That has inured mainly 

to the benefit of higher income people because we get a higher benefit to begin with, and in fact, if I don’t live to 62, I don’t get anything out of all those additional years of benefits, and if I am disabled I don’t get anything, so a lot of, most of the benefits from not 

indexing the retirement age over its history has inured to the benefit of higher income people. So if you cut back on that, we still 

have to worry about other distributional effects. You know, as I 

say, for people who are disabled, for people who don’t make it to 

62, for people who have trouble working, we have to worry about 

that. But not adjusting the retirement age is like throwing the 

money off the roof in a poor area of the city and hoping some of 

the poor get it. It is just not very target effective. 

So, yes, I would increase the retirement age and then I would try 

to come back into other provisions like minimum benefits and other 

things to make a system that, in my view, should be more progressive than it was. I think the system is less progressive than people 

think it is because it has a lot of regressive features that people 

didn’t pay attention to in the beginning, and so my goal is to make 

the system more progressive, better at the bottom, say the bottom 

half of the distribution, recognizing that because it is out of balance, people at the top are either going to have to take benefit cuts 

or tax increases, one or the other, to pay for it. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Ms. Miranda, what do you think the effect of the 

changes you have heard the other witnesses testify that they feel 

must be made in Social Security will have on working families? 

The changes that you have heard recommended, they have indicated they want to compensate for some of those changes with 

other adjustments and that the current program, they believe, does 

not adequately address the needs of poorer retirees. What is your 

reaction to their recommendations? 

Ms. MIRANDA. Well, we agree that the system does not adequate—provide adequate benefits for low-income retirees and others. However—and we are very much in favor of a lot of the ideas 

to improve benefits for the low income. However, these ideas are 

often coupled with a benefit cut, so there is no net improvement 

for low income. I did the math for Hispanic men and women. Hispanic women have the lowest average Social Security benefit for 

any gender or race or ethnicity, so their average benefit is below 

the poverty line. It is $10,438. And I did do the math on the 

chained CPI plus the age bump-up, and it is still a loss. It is still 

about a 11⁄2 percent loss to these low-income women already. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
90 

So there is no net gain from doing it if you couple it with a benefit cut. So we are in favor of things like the bump-up for the age, 

but we are not in favor of it being coupled with a cut. So we like 

some of those ideas. However, I would like to say with the special 

minimum benefit, I have also looked into it, including Dr. 

Steuerle’s research from the Urban Institute, and you see that lowincome people, the lowest income people have the shortest career 

histories in covered earnings, so something like 80 to 95 percent of 

low-income workers would not meet the requirements to get the 

full special minimum benefit. The requirement is 30 years in covered earnings, and only something like 3 to, at the most, 20 percent 

of low-income workers would meet that requirement. So you are excluding almost everybody. It is practically the null set. So I don’t 

know. I mean, every proposal seems to have that in there, and it 

doesn’t do much good—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. We have already heard your testimony, 

and his time has expired. 

Ms. MIRANDA. Oh, sorry. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Lloyd. Mr. Renacci, you are 

recognized. 

Mr. RENACCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all 

the witnesses and thank you for all your testimony. It is interesting because prior to coming to Congress I was a CPA and was 

brought into businesses in many cases that were failing, and when 

you looked at their failures, it was many times the owners would 

say, well, you know, we were doing fine, and we shouldn’t touch 

anything, and we shouldn’t have done anything, and what they 

really ignored was the trend in the future, and so I am appreciative 

that we are looking at the trends in the future here because that 

is the key. We can sit and just bury our head, but the trends are 

showing that we have got some problems. 

Mr. Steuerle, you made a comment where there is two sides, you 

are either for the box or against the box. It is kind of interesting 

because I would agree that some people when you say something, 

they would say you are against the box or you are for the box. I 

think everybody up here is making sure that Social Security is solvent for the future. I know as a father of three children, I want 

to make sure that the benefits are available to them, too. 

So when I look at things, I try and look at systemic issues, and 

I would like to ask—in reading your testimony, I see a couple 

things that have been brought out of your testimony, several of 

you. The system does not encourage savings, our current system, 

and the other thing is the system encourages retirement before the 

full retirement age. 

Those seem to be two real systemic problems within the current 

system which aren’t benefits, aren’t revenue raisers, aren’t any of 

those. These are actual systemic problems that—you know, I would 

like Mr. Steuerle or Mr. Fichtner if you could address, what are 

some of the ways Congress, and even the Social Security Administration can incentivize savings and also we can encourage older 

Americans to remain in the workforce? So I start with Mr. 

Steuerle. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
91 

Mr. STEUERLE. I have a number of suggestions in my testimony. I won’t go into all the details, but the basic suggestions are 

to bump up the retirement age. As it actually turns out, I would 

also increase the early retirement age because it actually turns out 

that the people who are hurt the worst are the lower income people 

who can work but don’t, that is their proportional loss in income 

over their retirement is actually worse than it is for higher income 

people who might have capital income on their side. And then, as 

I say, I would try to make a lot of other adjustments to make sure 

that that net change is more progressive. I would try to backload 

benefits more, that is to the extent we can make it more of an old 

age system rather than a system that is really a middle age retirement system, that is going to encourage work by not providing so 

much in the way of benefits up front. I would also offer people partial retirement options that Social Security doesn’t offer, so that 

people don’t have to think it is an all-or-nothing choice, which 

many of them do. 

On the savings front, I have suggested a number of times that 

we follow Britain’s example when they did Social Security reform, 

and we back up Social Security reform with a private pension reform that is aimed, by the way, at providing substantial coverage 

for the vast majority of people who get very little in private retirement benefits. 

Mr. RENACCI. Before I move to Mr. Fichtner, I would just ask 

you this question, instead of raising the age, how about changing 

the system? I have friends back home that are retiring because it 

makes no sense for them; if they work longer, they don’t get any 

additional benefit, and at the same time, there is no incentive to 

continue to work because they get their retirement benefits cut if 

they do, and they can’t work and get those benefits. 

Mr. STEUERLE. The current system has something called an 

earnings test, which technically doesn’t reduce benefits, but people 

think of as a huge tax rate on their benefits. Because technically 

what happens when those benefits get reduced, Social Security 

gives them an actuarial adjustment for higher benefits later. I 

want to make that explicit, they recognize by working longer that 

they could make that work to their advantage in a much more explicit way. But also the suggestion I made, and I think Mr. 

Fichtner made, to actually drop this notion of only counting 35 

years of work means if I work more than 35 years, I work past 62, 

that can also add to my benefits. So I make a number of adjustments along those lines. 

Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Fichtner. 

Mr. FICHTNER. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I realize your time is short, so I will second everything that Dr. 

Steuerle said, and then sort of add what can the Social Security 

Administration do to help encourage people to maybe delay claiming. Because those who take early retirement basically are behind, 

and the monthly benefit is lower than they would otherwise be 

when they get into their 80s or 90s, then behind for the rest of 

their lives. Part of it is financial literacy, which both of the Commission plans actually endorse, which we did show the benefits and 

the risks and costs of claiming early versus claiming later. And I 

think we should look at raising the early retirement age. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
92 

Right now, as we said, 40 percent take it at 62, 70 percent are 

taking it before normal retirement age. That means that is actually 

increasing poverty in older ages. If we increased it, but did like a 

hardship benefit or a special minimum benefit bump up, that 

would keep lower people out of poverty, but still give the incentive 

for those who continue to work. 

Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Mr. Tiberi, you are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. Thank you all. Great testimony. I got 

to tell you this should be easier to get done than it is after listening 

to you all. But let me tell you just a couple stories. I was at a senior center in my district 10 years ago. I was supposed to give a congressional update. And there were seniors there from 62 to in the 

90s. Before I could even get a word out about my congressional update, this lady in the back of the room wanted to know why I was 

on the Bush privatization of Social Security. And I answered there 

was not a piece of legislation yet, but we have to fix Social Security, maybe not for you all, but for your kids and certainly your 

grandkids. 

Another lady said, ‘‘My grandkids are spoiled. Don’t touch Social 

Security, because I paid into it just like I paid into Medicare.’’ I 

have noticed over the last 10 years, and I think it has to do with 

organizations like yours and yours, that seniors are tending to understand more that they didn’t pay into Medicare every benefit 

they are getting out. That is been a real struggle, by the way, a 

real struggle. 

So I think education is the key. And you talked about the progressivity. Dead on. But the lack of education even among some 

Members is striking to me. I have a senior population who still believes that we should fix the notch years, right? The notch years. 

And I try to tell them, you know, you got a better deal than my 

dad, who is going to be 80. And my dad retired at 65. You know, 

maybe I should be mad that somebody here changed the retirement 

age and requires me to retire at 67. But I got to tell you, my sister, 

who is in her 30s, doesn’t even think that even matters because she 

doesn’t believe she is going to get Social Security. And to say, and 

some in this town say, well, this isn’t a problem, they should go 

look at their Social Security benefit package if they are under 50. 

Here is my question to you: How do we get just Members of Congress to understand the severity of the problem in the system? Because I think you are absolutely right, Mr. Steuerle, and Mr. 

Fuerst, you are on the same page, we can’t fix these systems that 

benefit us if we get there by raising more revenue to put into those 

systems, because it is tragic what we are doing to little girls and 

little boys who are trying to get an education. My parents were immigrants. They never had great jobs. They are now concerned 

about their grandkids. 

So this shouldn’t be about CEOs and NBA basketball players and 

them paying their fair share. This should be about fundamentally 

fixing two vitally important programs for the future. And you have 

all made some really great suggestions. But the politics of this 

aren’t quite there yet. Mr. Lorenzen. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
93 

Mr. LORENZEN. I want to say a couple of things. First, I think 

it is important to talk not only about the importance that those 

programs are strong for future generations, for future children and 

my soon-to-be-born child, but also to talk about what it means for 

the resources for other priorities that Dr. Steuerle was talking 

about, that if tax revenues are going to those programs, those are 

tax revenues that are not available for other priorities. I think that 

is an equally important point to remind people. 

And I would just use this opportunity to make a shameless plug. 

The Committee for Responsible Federal Budget, which hosts the 

Moment of Truth Project, will be coming out shortly with The Reformer, which will be an interactive online tool that will allow people to look at the different options for changing benefits and revenues. And you will see what it means over 75 years and the period, 

and so people can see the choices and trade-offs. 

Mr. TIBERI. And let me tell you what I support. I had a debate 

with a smart guy who argued with me that taking it at 62 was better because life expectancy is longer now. So there are smart people 

who do that. But I got to tell you, in this town if I say I am for 

fixing Social Security and Medicare, somebody might say, well— 

someone has said, well, it is because you want to do that, you want 

to cut benefits, you want to hurt the program. Let me tell you, I 

mean, I would like to cut the retirement age to 55, you know, as 

a selfish person. That is not what this is about. I don’t want to cut 

anybody’s benefits. I want to make sure that people who, like my 

mom and dad, who depend on this program, get it, and that we 

don’t rob future generations to get there. So Mr. Steuerle, any final 

comments on the politics of this? 

Mr. STEUERLE. Yes, I don’t know what else we can do here. I 

am actually, and every person at this table, we all work on trying 

to give you data you can use. If you look, for instance, at the last 

graph in my testimony, that is the one I use when people want to 

argue the trust fund balances. Because it basically shows that 

when you get to about 2035, we are going to be paying maybe 30 

percent more than we got in the way of revenues. So regardless of 

what you think about the trust funds, show them that type of data. 

I do lifetime value of and benefits and taxes. I keep pointing out 

that the package of benefits in Social Security and Medicare is now 

approaching $1 million. When I say that to people, they don’t say, 

gee, it has got to be higher, you know, once they know the real 

numbers. And then finally on the retirement age, one I strongly 

suggest, and Mr. Lorenzen and I have talked about this, in their 

Commission they debated how to announce it in terms of the increase in the retirement age, this is the normal retirement age, but 

if you look at their package, they actually keep giving more and 

more years—which I would not do by the way—keep giving more 

and more years of benefits to people as they live longer, just less 

than they get now. If you go to the public and say should it be a 

priority of Social Security to continually provide more years of benefits to people or should we have other priorities, they will usually 

accept—they won’t accept that as an option. And yet that is the 

system we have. So that is different than saying you are increasing 

the retirement age. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
94 

Chairman JOHNSON. I want to thank each of you for being 

here. And we appreciate your testimony. We have got votes on the 

floor. And I don’t want to try to hold you during that time. We are 

adjourning today for Memorial Day. How about that? So I want to 

thank each and every one of you for being here, and thank our 

panel for their questions, and thank you, Lloyd. So we will stand 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:33 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions for the record follow:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
95 

Donald Fuerst 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.068
96 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.069
97 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.070
98 

Eugene Steuerle 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.071
99 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.072
100 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.073
101 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.074
102 

Jason Fichtner 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.075
103 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.076
104 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.077
105 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.078
106 

Jason Fichtner, attachment 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.079
107 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.080
108 

William Hoagland 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.081
109 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.082
110 

Ed Lorenzen 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.083
111 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.084
112 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.085
113 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.086
114 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.087
115 

[Submission for the record follows:] 

RetireSafe, statement 

Æ 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89585A.088