Posted on 02/01/2005 10:12:50 AM PST by laissez- faire
The late Pat Moynihan used to joke when I asked him why liberals were so reluctant to consider changing Social Security so that it guaranteed wealth as well as income: "It's because they worry that wealth will turn Democrats into Republicans." Leaving aside that possible correlation, it will be a shame if liberal voices, values and ideas are not brought into the debate initiated by President Bush's Social Security reform proposal. To make certain the reforms are done correctly liberal thinking is urgently needed......
.....Though these bonds are far from "worthless," as some critics allege, the picture of them "accumulating in a trust fund" is not accurate either. That is because, in order to convert these bonds into cash, the U.S. Treasury will use the cash from individual and corporate income taxes. While some income taxes are currently used to pay Social Security benefits, the dollar amounts do not pose a serious budgetary challenge. In eight years that will change. Coupled with the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, the annual benefit demands of Social Security will put real pressure on Congress to cut spending on defense and nondefense appropriations.
It is at this point in time that the demographic and monetary demands of the baby boom generation will become painfully apparent. The disinvestment in public infrastructure caused by the growth in Medicare and Medicaid will become even worse than it is today. And the nature of this crisis will be considerably more daunting than that faced squarely by Congress and the president in 1983. Liberals, who have silently watched the share of state and federal spending apportioned to the elderly grow at the expense of education, training, child care and research, will be appalled to discover how much their silence has cost them.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
"I am too asshole." --Bob Kerrey to FReeper Kristinn
Anybody post this at DU yet? I would enjoy reading that thread.
In what context?
The "crisis" isn't in 75 years when the "trust fund" goes broke. It's not even in 18 or 20 years when there's no longer a "surplus" and the government has to start "paying back" the bonds. The real crisis is when next year's "Social Security surplus" is smaller than this year's "Social Security surplus." That's when Congress either has to start cutting spending somewhere, or find new revenues, or start welshing on their promises to retirees. Because without that magical source of revenue that they jokingly call the "Social Security surplus," they will need to find other ways to pay for all the pork and boondoggles that they spend money on. I'm not sure if that crisis point is 8 years off like Bob Kerry said, or 6 years off, or 4 years off. But it's not nearly as far as all the other fake "crisis points" way in the future (system goes broke, system start drawing on bonds, etc.).
Kristinn said to Kerrey "Im a citizen" and then Kerrey responded.
There is video of it around here somewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.