In UK and the US, the need to balance the books is addressed not by sustainable fiscal strategy but by panic measures

In Britain and the US alike, a genuine need to balance the books over the decades ahead is being answered not by a sustainable fiscal strategy, but by panic measures. Thus Congress refuses to embrace President Obama's necessary plan for jobs on the grounds that retrenchment is needed, and yet at the same time it refuses to countenance the future tax rises that all sane analysis says will eventually be required.

Likewise, the coalition talks up a "debt crisis" to justify an immediate squeeze on family incomes which is snuffing out a fragile recovery, and yet there are signs of a more relaxed stance towards the distant expenditures which will determine how far Britain can pay its way in the future. One example is Trident, where the failure to rethink the sort of power the UK can realistically aspire to be is saddling the country with an extraordinary bill. More financially significant still are state pensions for an ageing population. While all other benefits are being ratcheted down relative to total inflation, the coalition has reinstated the link between pensions and earnings, which will sharply increase the bill when meaningful pay rises return. Yesterday brought another move that will further increase the costs. George Osborne had said he would need to raise the pension age steeply to manage the demographic bulge of retiring baby boomers in a context of rising longevity – a tough decision for which these columns had offered qualified support. Now the timetable is to slip back – only by six months, it is true, but even this will cost £1bn.

There were decent enough arguments for giving ground – particularly the concentrated effect on certain women born in the 1950s – but then there always are decent arguments for not making a cut. What is frankly weird is to allow these to trump more decisive objections to other cuts which are going ahead, such as the restrictions on childcare support which will price some parents out of the workplace and a vicious benefit cap which will snatch food from the mouths of babes in big families. The disparity is only underlined by the fact that, while benefits to older people represent half the total welfare bill, this expenditure has been almost entirely exempted from the Department for Work and Pensions' deep cuts.

Politicians are used to being accused of short-termism, but the phenomenon of "cut now and then relax about the future state of the books" is new. It might be called long-termism. No doubt its application in connection with pensions reflects the fact that older voters are growing in number, and already turn out more. But amid rising rents and fading hopes of home ownership for the young, it is not hard to imagine age rage taking hold.

My retirement was rescheduled from April to July after delays in administering a voluntary contribution policy

While I was in employment, I paid as much as I could afford in voluntary contributions to my company pension scheme. I retired on 26 April 2011 and gave the pension administrators, HS Admin, sufficient notice of that date. HS Admin was unable to proceed to payment because it had difficulties dealing with Aviva, who administered the voluntary contribution policy.

After a lot of chasing, Aviva finally produced the information in time for my retirement to be re-scheduled to 26 July 2011. The upshot was that I "lost" three months worth of income of £1,105.23 per month and interest on the cash lump sum of £88,418.35 (benefits as calculated for the April date). I say lost because, of course, the benefits were recalculated from the new retirement date and, actuarially speaking, I'm getting the same result. This situation is further complicated by the fact that the unit price of the fund I was invested in went up during the delay. Consequently, my cash sum increased by £1,898 and my pension by £23.73 per month.

But this luck of the investment draw ignores the fact that I raised an official complaint with Aviva on 15 June 2010 which it closed arbitrarily when it paid out in July. I had to send a letter on 27 July asking it to re-open the complaint, review its performance and consider compensation. I called to follow this up on 22 August and was told to give them another month. I called today to learn that nothing has been done. I am talking to individuals in a "service resolution" department who are doing the best they can but they seem snowed under with work. RI, Bewdley, Worcestershire

This is a complicated case. Aviva said any delays were outside of its control because it had to repeatedly send paperwork to HS Admin and had told it a number of times what Aviva required in order for your pension to be paid. It said it had responded to all requests within a reasonable timeframe and, as such, was not responsible for any financial loss arising from the length of time it took to release your benefits. However, it did admit that it disinvested your funds almost two months early, and apologised for this as well as the length of time it has taken to solve your dispute. It has sent you a cheque for £150 by way of apology and does indeed sound contrite.

We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@guardian.co.uk or write to Brignall & King, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number