Daniel Moynihan: “not for the first time do I rise on the Senate floor to agree with the distinguished Senator from Arizona on this…”

“not for the first time do I rise on the Senate floor to agree with the distinguished Senator from Arizona on this matter. In October 1993, we had the same issue before us. He is right. The earnings test for a person 65 to 69 is an obsolete arrangement that we associate with the Depression. It has never changed. It, in fact, does no disservice, in actuarial terms, to the persons who are affected because at age 70, or whatever, if you retire, having had benefits reduced because of earnings, you get a higher retirement benefit. From the actuary's point of view, it is all a wash after a while. As I say, I have here my benefits statement. If I were to retire, or more specifically, if the people of New York were to retire me in January 1994, at age 66 and 10 months, I would receive $1,259. I now get no benefits because I have a salary that uses them all up. At age 70, my retirement benefit would be $1,470 per month and no reduction whatever for whatever earnings there might be. Even so, the earnings test is not understood and it does not seem right. When there is something about the social insurance system that is not understood and does not seem right, we ought to change it. We can change it at no cost to the system over time. You have to make changes slowly in a system of this kind. The National Commission on Social Security reform made a report in January 1983. We proposed that the retirement age be increased to 66 and then to 67 years.…”