but, FWIW, the electorate did not fall for it last time, the elected O, and notably, FL went to O.
the items the current demographic cannot support are medicare, sosec (particularly as it pertains to COLA), and defined benefit pensions at all levels of government.
while I prefer means testing these earned benefits as a way out of the demographic woods, and 'chained-Cola' does have a means component, it seems to me that in general, using a less aggressive line for benefit increases is among the gentler ways to accommodate demographic reality.
i am aware of folks who will be eligible for multiple defined benefit (DB) pensions (sosec, national govS, private) and am fully cogent that these folks have those anticipated benefits well entrenched into their plans.
Oregon just took a swipe at state DB pensions, WI recently required greater contributions, BigAuto presumably accomplished something in its tarp negotiations with it union DB obligations. Oregon courts will have to weigh in on whether the legislature can opt out of previously made commitments, but when one puts the whole thing into a blender and recognizes the demographic burden, to me at least, it seems the way out of the woods is some component of agreed upon means testing to scale back COLA or otherwise set boundaries around such DB benefits (such as, as you brought up, survivorship).
The big demographic challenges are medicare and socsec DB, more broadly they also include gov worker DBs.
pretty much a ramble, but you get the point.
| 