Dear Larry,

This isn't really a question, but rather a complaint about those who devised that budget deal. I was trying to get this bill revised! I just turned 62 July 3rd. You can imagine why I'm really angry about this. I spoke with my Congressman and wrote a question to another writer Phillip Moeller back in February. This law should have been for those who are 55 and under, not for people retiring in the next 3-5 years. At least then, we could have an opportunity to recoup that money. Most people still don't even know about that budget deal. They're going to be in for a big surprise. I won't get that extra $54K I was counting on because of this deal. It was done because the Disability program was going to run out of money in 2016. Why should I get shafted on by benefits because of that program? I still want to see that piece of the budget deal reversed. If Hillary gets in there, I'm hoping that's what they'll do. Thanks for listening. Best, Lisa

Dear Lisa,

As you may know, I'm running as a serious write-in candidate for President at www.kotlikoff2016.com. Hence, I can't claim to be objective in discussing Hillary. But here goes.

First, I agree entirely that no one should have had their benefits cuts for which they had paid and on which they had counted. This said, Social Security is dead broke and can't be maintained in its current form.

I have a simple plan at www.kotlikoff2016.com to fix Social Security as well as our other major domestic problems. But I don't propose fixing Social Security by reneging on benefits. Instead, I propose freezing the existing system in place and paying off every penny owed under the old system -- including the spousal benefits on which you had been counting. But I'd also replace Social Security with a personalized system, which involves investing in the market, but with government guarantees and with not a penny going to Wall Street.

I'll let you check out the details in the platform book posted at the site, but I expect you'll like the very simple (postcard length) reform.

As for Hillary, you need to realize that the changes to Social Security law enacted last November were initiated by the Obama Administration. The President requested, in his budget proposal, that Congress cut down on "aggressive" claiming strategies by the rich. In November, he then gave the Republicans in the House carte blanche to take a meat cleaver to Social Security. The new law is part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. It was formulated in the dead of night and then rushed to a vote with no public hearings or debate. I'm sure that not a single member of Congress really understood what they were voting for when, under a made-up voting deadline, they voted for the overall bill and, as a consequence, ratified the new Social Security provisions.

I think the Democrats believed and still believe that taking spousal benefits, while waiting to collect one's own retirement benefit at its highest value, represented gaming the system by the rich. They formulated this view with no real evidence of any kind. I truly doubt that's the case. The vast majority of people I know who were hurt by the new law are, like I sense is the case with you, from either lower- or middle-income households and are having a very rough time getting by. As for gaming the system, every benefit the system provides could be viewed as a boondoggle going to someone.

The upshot of the new law is that we will have many more people taking their benefits far sooner than they should and end up with vast numbers of elderly in far worse economic shape down the road.

But the new law is in place. Hillary is not going to change it. Her gang produced it and they will, over time, see the damage they have wrought.

Were I elected, I would restore the old law, but also freeze the old system starting day one and set up my Purple Social Security Plan in its place.