Posted on 02/27/2005 12:59:54 PM PST by wagglebee
In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress passed the Social Security Act, part of a system envisioned by FDR to provide a secure retirement for Americans. Social Security benefits were never intended to stand alone as a retirement vehicle, but rather to be just a part of Roosevelt's vision, which included personal savings and private pensions. Call it the retirement tripod.
Today, tens of millions of Americans are faced with the reality that one leg of that tripod is seriously weakening, and will surely collapse in the future. One does not have to be a Wall Street actuary or work for the Social Security Administration to know that the prospect of Social Security as we know it today will not be the Social Security of tomorrow's retirees.
In 1935, a 65-year-old person was basically expected to live some 12 years more. Today, a 65-year-old is expected to live an additional 17 years; by the year 2040, the average person will live 19 years more.
In 1950, 16 workers supported each Social Security recipient. Today, that number is 3 to 1; by the year 2030, it will be 2 to 1.
In 2002, 45 percent of Social Security retirees opted for early retirement benefits at age 62. In 1960, that number was 23 percent.
As documented by The Heritage Foundation in 2002, the above numbers represent just some of the problems that have made Social Security anything but secure for the future. If Congress – and the voters who elect members – do nothing, Social Security will take on the aspect of a futuristic government-run soup line, barely able to provide enough economic sustenance to survive, let alone enjoy.
By 2077, the unfunded liability of Social Security will be a mind-warping $25 trillion.
So is easy to see why there's so much apprehension among elected officials. The problems of Social Security are mammoth, and these problems stretch over into future generations. Something must be done, and it must be done now.
Enter President Bush.
Bush has begun to open a dialogue that Washington passed over for many years. Bush has laid a few markers down for Social Security personal accounts, but remains open to ideas.
Democrats – whose solution to the runaway train wreck of Social Security was to gather around the FDR Memorial in the National Mall in staged solidarity for media consumption – have exhibited much heavy breathing and unvarnished hostility toward Bush's idea of personal accounts.
Democratic Party leaders have labeled the Bush plan as "roulette" and a "Wall Street windfall." Last year's presidential runner-up, John Kerry, termed the president's plan for personal accounts a "rip-off."
But Democrats know, for all their heated chest-pounding, that Social Security is mired in insolvency. From former President Clinton on down to the most junior House member, Democrats know. They know that doing nothing is not an option.
Forget for a minute all the numbers and projections regarding Social Security. Instead, think of that statue of FDR and the Democratic Party leaders, like Senators Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, who adoringly and longingly surrounded it. Not just a 10-foot chunk of bronze, but a 75-year legacy of the Democratic Party's socialistic tendencies was what Democratic Party leaders were lamenting over that day.
For today's Democratic Party sees more and more of its liberal forefathers' public-enslaving programs going by the wayside, the primary reason for their near-uniform intractability when facing the prospect of personal and privately owned Social Security accounts for all Americans who desire them.
Social Security, in its present form, will one day join the ranks of other socialized programs created by Democrats during their golden days, such as massive government-sponsored public works, Keynesian economics, and the welfare state that was the "Great Society."
Democrats know that these institutions of socialism cannot stand up to an enlightened and informed society, and they hear the bell tolling for their most enduring legacy: Social Security.
It is the thought of millions of people actually deciding for themselves their own economic future – without the suffocation of government – that drives the Democratic Party of today to react to Social Security reform as Dracula reacts to the cross.
The debate over Social Security will rage on for months to come. If you listen hard and cut through the rhetorical fog, you will hear FDR's last great socialistic remedy come ever so slowly crashing down, thereby freeing those who desire a remedy for economic independence in old age, as opposed to government dependency for the masses.
While the rest of the country views Social Security as the main economic problem of our time, Democrats cannot help but see it as the premiere socialist program of a time gone by. Socialism Security will die a slow death, but die it will. RIP.
Can't argue with that.
Social Security reform ping.
May I suggest another approach for the Dems. Simply subsidize lifestyles that will result in reduction of average lifespan to around 67 years.
How about:
1. Legalize gay marriage.
2. Decriminalize and eventually legalize narcotics.
3. Legalize prostitution.
4. Uh... never mind, I think they already got the memo.
My prediction: There will be a new 1% tax on individuals and employers that will be controlled and owned by the taxpayer. That will be to mollify those who want personal accounts. They will also raise the wage cap a little, probably to $100k. Then they will raise the age at which you can start early retirement. They will then claim that they have saved sosacurity forever.
If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25), offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and SS/Medicare payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement in the form of a retail sales tax:
H.R.25,S.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.Refer for additional information:
Wouldn't be surprised to find this little exercise results in a tax increase. Personally I am really tired of getting taken.
Euthanasia is how they plan on dealing with it.
Strong candidate for understatement of the year award in my book!
(The non-final solution?)
/The Clockwork Orange..........the British 'are' coming?
/Sarcasm in the 'Public Schools'.....
/Columbine?
IMO an effective marketing tool would be a Times Square lighted sign with the trillions getting ever larger every day....saying "look how much it's costing us to wait"
socialism security bump
read later
Social Security should be kept as is for anyone over 50 and after that it should be cancelled. Then workers should have the option of putting away 7 per cent of their income with a company and government match going into a mutual fund or index fund.
How about giving everyone the option of keeping same or switching?...
What happens, BTW, to all the $ I've put in if we switch???
You lose it. YOu would have lost it anyway. Congress has used it in the biggest ponzi scheme ever devised.
I agree we could give people the option.
If you look at what the stock market had done over ANY 15 year period (based on a 50 year old retiring at 65) in the last century, even a 50 year old would benefit from privitization. The stock market over any considerable period is a very sound investment and produces significant returns; in contrast, the 'Rats Ponzi scheme has barely covered inflation.
http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/index.cfm?event=showAverages
I am 58. If I had been putting my SS tax in investments since I began working, I would have millions.
You might find this interesting.
https://www.benchmarkinvesting.com/DowReturns.asp
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.