Mark West
Securing Social Security
By Mark West
What do you believe to be the greatest threat to Social Security? Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy said that he believes that President George Bush and the Republican Party are. I am so amused watching these events transpire. My amusement isn't some sadistic desire to keep the elderly from being taken care of either. Why am I amused?
Politicians who have propped up one campaign after another over Social Security are finally going to be forced to make good on their promises. The new line from the Democratic Party is that nothing is really wrong with Social Security. That's quite a change from the 'lock box' lingo of the 2000 Presidential campaign. Don't misunderstand; I believe that deep down Democrats want to fix Social Security; it's just such a good campaign issue for them that they refuse to loose it, regardless of who happens to be president...just ask former President Clinton.
I'm excited to see campaign rhetoric subjected to a drive to actually get the job done. Many facts are circulating about Social Security. Officially, President Bush believes that by 2018 Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it takes in through taxes. Armageddon Day for Social Security appears to be 2042 according also to the President. Meanwhile Democrats claim that nothing major is wrong with Social Security and that it would be best left alone...for a little while, anyway. It reminds me of something I heard before about divorce, "There's her side and there's his side...then there's the facts!"
Factually, Social Security does face challenges that get more expensive as each year passes. However, the biggest danger to Social Security isn't an individual politician, but rather the political atmosphere in Washington, D.C. Most in the executive and legislative branches of our federal government are suffering in the grips of...spendaholism! Federal spending has grown at an unbelievable pace for the last few decades. Where has the money come from? At times Social Security!
A day will soon arrive that will hold the politicians accountable for its lack of discretion in spending away the "promise" of Social Security. Leave it to Washington to enter into a contract with the American people only to fail in keeping its end of the bargain. I guess it is finally time to pay the piper!
This failure exposes Washington thinking for exactly what it is. Social Security was designed to be a trust fund that stored up the "contributions" made to it to secure a base in retirement for the hard working. However, as President Bush recently and correctly stated, annual Social Security benefits are being paid from annual payroll taxes. What? Where are the trust funds? Empty! Well, unless you count those U.S. Treasury Bonds (read Government I.O.U.s). Aside from those, all of the "surpluses" that existed in Social Security have been spent by politicians paying for their stay in office. Washington-ites have no problem spending your money, that's right...Social Security is your money, not the federal government's.
Social Security reform hinges on whether our elected officials can resist the temptation to draw money from Social Security to pay for some pork project back home. Many in Washington are faced with a frustrating choice by this administration. Which is more important, securing America's future or striving to remain in office? This is a crucial decision that must be made by this generation. The decisions made on Social Security reform will determine whether Washington gets a makeover in the near future.
I'm not a Social Security expert, but I have read a lot on this issue out of curiosity. Believe it or not, I do have an idea that may help deal with the problem. Before I share my idea I want to first make it clear that I am in favor of the volunteer spirit that is strongly expressed in our nation. I believe that if Social Security had been done on a voluntary basis with surer accountability, it wouldn't be facing the problems it is today.
When Americans are asked to voluntarily give to a good cause, they normally seek little in return other than the assurance that their donations have hit the intended target. When people have their income confiscated from them, whether for a cause that is good or bad, they normally expect to get something in return. In Social Security's case Americans are expecting benefits when they retire. A promise made should be a promise kept especially when income has been confiscated for the purpose of keeping that promise.
I do believe that President Bush's desire to allow younger workers the opportunity to choose to invest a portion of their Social Security into private accounts is a good, freedom promoting idea. However, I understand that the transition costs may be a little steep. Where do we get the extra income? Of course some in Congress want to raise payroll taxes on working Americans. While I agree that a payroll tax should be raised, I don't believe it should be the working Americans that pay it.
I suggest that the members of our Congress and all other State employees who do not currently pay Social Security should have to begin paying Social Security. Those who are exempt from paying will benefit from one of those good federal retirement programs and wont need Social Security anyway. This boost of income will help cut into the cost of the transition.
However, in case this offends our "leaders," I also propose that a tax incentive be set up that would benefit persons who choose to forgo receiving Social Security benefits, thus leaving extra for others. Basically, some people have an excellent financial sense...or inheritance...that puts them in a position in which they won't need Social Security at retirement. They could forgo their Social Security benefits, leaving more for the less fortunate to have at retirement. I'm sure some in Congress will call this a tax break for the rich, but I call it a call to volunteerism.
These three points would support the independence of individual American citizens while allowing them to showcase their charitable nature. Point #1, Private accounts for those who choose to have them. Point #2, State employees must pay in. Point #3, Tax incentives for individuals who forgo receiving benefits.
I wish that the "good faith and credit" of the American people wasn't restrained by the debt we know owe to current and future retirees in Social Security benefits. However, True Americans can come together and work things out for the better of America, even if it means a little compromise at times.
© Mark West
What do you believe to be the greatest threat to Social Security? Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy said that he believes that President George Bush and the Republican Party are. I am so amused watching these events transpire. My amusement isn't some sadistic desire to keep the elderly from being taken care of either. Why am I amused?
Politicians who have propped up one campaign after another over Social Security are finally going to be forced to make good on their promises. The new line from the Democratic Party is that nothing is really wrong with Social Security. That's quite a change from the 'lock box' lingo of the 2000 Presidential campaign. Don't misunderstand; I believe that deep down Democrats want to fix Social Security; it's just such a good campaign issue for them that they refuse to loose it, regardless of who happens to be president...just ask former President Clinton.
I'm excited to see campaign rhetoric subjected to a drive to actually get the job done. Many facts are circulating about Social Security. Officially, President Bush believes that by 2018 Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it takes in through taxes. Armageddon Day for Social Security appears to be 2042 according also to the President. Meanwhile Democrats claim that nothing major is wrong with Social Security and that it would be best left alone...for a little while, anyway. It reminds me of something I heard before about divorce, "There's her side and there's his side...then there's the facts!"
Factually, Social Security does face challenges that get more expensive as each year passes. However, the biggest danger to Social Security isn't an individual politician, but rather the political atmosphere in Washington, D.C. Most in the executive and legislative branches of our federal government are suffering in the grips of...spendaholism! Federal spending has grown at an unbelievable pace for the last few decades. Where has the money come from? At times Social Security!
A day will soon arrive that will hold the politicians accountable for its lack of discretion in spending away the "promise" of Social Security. Leave it to Washington to enter into a contract with the American people only to fail in keeping its end of the bargain. I guess it is finally time to pay the piper!
This failure exposes Washington thinking for exactly what it is. Social Security was designed to be a trust fund that stored up the "contributions" made to it to secure a base in retirement for the hard working. However, as President Bush recently and correctly stated, annual Social Security benefits are being paid from annual payroll taxes. What? Where are the trust funds? Empty! Well, unless you count those U.S. Treasury Bonds (read Government I.O.U.s). Aside from those, all of the "surpluses" that existed in Social Security have been spent by politicians paying for their stay in office. Washington-ites have no problem spending your money, that's right...Social Security is your money, not the federal government's.
Social Security reform hinges on whether our elected officials can resist the temptation to draw money from Social Security to pay for some pork project back home. Many in Washington are faced with a frustrating choice by this administration. Which is more important, securing America's future or striving to remain in office? This is a crucial decision that must be made by this generation. The decisions made on Social Security reform will determine whether Washington gets a makeover in the near future.
I'm not a Social Security expert, but I have read a lot on this issue out of curiosity. Believe it or not, I do have an idea that may help deal with the problem. Before I share my idea I want to first make it clear that I am in favor of the volunteer spirit that is strongly expressed in our nation. I believe that if Social Security had been done on a voluntary basis with surer accountability, it wouldn't be facing the problems it is today.
When Americans are asked to voluntarily give to a good cause, they normally seek little in return other than the assurance that their donations have hit the intended target. When people have their income confiscated from them, whether for a cause that is good or bad, they normally expect to get something in return. In Social Security's case Americans are expecting benefits when they retire. A promise made should be a promise kept especially when income has been confiscated for the purpose of keeping that promise.
I do believe that President Bush's desire to allow younger workers the opportunity to choose to invest a portion of their Social Security into private accounts is a good, freedom promoting idea. However, I understand that the transition costs may be a little steep. Where do we get the extra income? Of course some in Congress want to raise payroll taxes on working Americans. While I agree that a payroll tax should be raised, I don't believe it should be the working Americans that pay it.
I suggest that the members of our Congress and all other State employees who do not currently pay Social Security should have to begin paying Social Security. Those who are exempt from paying will benefit from one of those good federal retirement programs and wont need Social Security anyway. This boost of income will help cut into the cost of the transition.
However, in case this offends our "leaders," I also propose that a tax incentive be set up that would benefit persons who choose to forgo receiving Social Security benefits, thus leaving extra for others. Basically, some people have an excellent financial sense...or inheritance...that puts them in a position in which they won't need Social Security at retirement. They could forgo their Social Security benefits, leaving more for the less fortunate to have at retirement. I'm sure some in Congress will call this a tax break for the rich, but I call it a call to volunteerism.
These three points would support the independence of individual American citizens while allowing them to showcase their charitable nature. Point #1, Private accounts for those who choose to have them. Point #2, State employees must pay in. Point #3, Tax incentives for individuals who forgo receiving benefits.
I wish that the "good faith and credit" of the American people wasn't restrained by the debt we know owe to current and future retirees in Social Security benefits. However, True Americans can come together and work things out for the better of America, even if it means a little compromise at times.
© Mark West
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
