|
|
|
Social Security |
|
|
Could Social Security BE any more emotion-driven? 3/01/05Frankly, I think I've been mentally unable to comment on the entire Social Security debate. When we get into the political arena, all bets are off. There is very little intellectually honest debate. Even the best shows and commentators, such as Tim Russert of NBC's Meet The Press, can do only so much to clear up these intentionally muddied waters. Okay, fine. There many not be an actual, bonafide "crisis" YET. But no honest person can deny that the system is doomed without substantial changes. In essence, this thing has been a legal pyramid-slash-ponzi-scheme since the beginning. In the 1940's there were over forty workers paying for each retiree, today there are three. There is no money set aside anywhere. By 2025 there will be two workers paying the cash flow to support one retiree. Does that mean the system should be dumped? Of course not!! That's part of the scare tactic used whenever the topic of fixing Social Security is raised. Americans seem united in believing that there should be a safety net for our citizens, and that a promise made needs to be a promise kept. It's just that rarely before has there been such a confusing topic, that impacts so many people, that is more prone to emotion than this one. Is the money really there in a trust fund? Is this a general fund and budget question or a separate, self-sustaining system that needs fixing? I've often wondered if we shouldn't call a spade a spade and bring Social Security "on budget". That would sure change things. And in essence that's what is so confusing. I've heard Ted Kennedy and other Democrats link the issue inextricably to Bush's tax cuts, which are a general fund issue. So now we really cloud the issue of the "trust fund" by linking it to broad, general debates on tax policy. Wow. That makes chances of reaching consensus pretty slim (maybe that's the point?). I don't know whether 2% of my retirement going into private accounts is good or not. Frankly, I still need to be sold on the practical implications that would have to government cash flow. However, the doom-and-gloomers are schizophrenically saying A) there is no problem, and B) if we try to fix it all hell will break loose. In fact, I've always believed that when trying to solve a problem you focus on the problem, and brainstorm any and all solutions as a starting point. But yesterday on Meet The Press, Sen. HARRY REID (D-NV) said, "We're willing to work with the president for the Social Security in the out years when we recognize there are some problems 40, 50 years from now. We're happy to work with the president in that regard, but not until he takes privatization off the table. We are not going to negotiate with ourselves until the president takes privatization off the board, period." I'm not sure that's the open-minded view we need. Further, I got an email today from www.factcheck.org that says:
Liberal Group Attacks Our Article: Here's Why They Are Wrong As you may know, I'm a fan of www.factcheck.org, as one of the relatively few, true, truth-driven web sites in the world. They're a great resource on this topic. On the other hand, I mentioned the pragmatic cash-flow reality. I question this reality as it relates to Bush's plan to have some percentage of SS investment go into private accounts. And in fact, that cash being removed from availability for off-budget theft (borrowing?) by the rest of the government MAY IN FACT be a real, true and pragmatic obstacle to the President's plan. If there is not cash flow, then there is no cash flow. And contrary to what I said about Ted Kennedy, perhaps it DOES turn the issue into a general fund consideration. My complaint is that for political gain, we bounce back and forth in our arguments, mix metaphors, and generally just lack intellectual honesty to tow the party line. And perhaps ultimately there IS a limit to the theory that says tax decreases and less government spur the economy and fill the government coffers - perhaps there is a point of diminishing return or pragmatic end to that theory. I've loved it and believe in it - to a degree - but Michigan is an example that somewhere there may be an end. At some point, there just isn't enough money and services have to be cut or removed, or revenue must be raised. So what are we to do? Truly, Social Security is an example of a complex issue, often oversimplified. But one thing is for sure, doing nothing is NOT my first choice. Doing nothing is silly. Taking ideas off the table is sillier yet. We have a second term president interested in solving this thing. I hoped Clinton would in his second term, and for whatever reasons (everyone can point fingers), it didn't get done. This is a rare opportunity to fix it - and by "fix it" I don't simply mean tweak it so that it'll push the doom dates out another 5 years by giving it a little bit more money. The political stars are aligned. Now, if only the "gods" that think they rule the universe (politicians) could do what we elect them to do and make an intellectually honest attempt at this thing, we just might stand a chance at preserving this necessary safety net. |
|
Send mail to
sgibson@truthdriventhinking.com with
questions or comments about this web site.
|