Posted on 03/15/2005 10:12:22 AM PST by anymouse
As President Bush "goes on tour," trying to sell his still ambiguous Social Security Reform plan to the American people in 60 different cities, the one idea that is clear is that the program, as we know, it should be reformed. If Social Security was one of its own recipients, it would already be retired and collecting, now at age 70. Come to think of it, retirement doesn't sound like a bad idea, either. It seems President Bush is not the only one who can be accused of ambiguity on this issue. Many members of Congress have differing opinions about how much the Social Security "Trust Fund" is worth, how it is defined, or even if it exists. Most folks, in and out of the beltway view it as a bunch of IOU's that amount to a Congressional slush fund. Likewise, no one seems to agree on a date that Social Security will run out. I have heard as early as 2013, and as late as 2042, and pretty much the gamut in between. We even have some (mostly, if not all, the Democrats) even claiming that Social Security is hunky dory and stable, in spite of past claims.
What we do know is that the plan was originally intended to be social insurance, not a retirement plan. We also know that in spite of all its glamour, Social Security did hurt millions of workers through further loss of jobs and drastically increased taxes, along with other unconstitutional New Deal entitlements established by President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930's, as per a December 29, 2003 Cato Institute essay written by Jim Powell. We also know that 50 or so years ago, the worker to recipient ratio was about 16-1. Today it is 3-1 and dropping quickly. We now have more recipients about to soon collect, thanks to the post World War II baby boom generation, and thanks to advances in medicine, more of our elderly and aging baby boomers are living longer to collect more. Possibly facing the new generations of recipients, to the extent that they will ever receive anything at all, are higher retirement ages, more restrictions on benefits and a broken income cap on withholdings.
Even with the solvency argument about Social Security, confidence in the system seems to be weak and further faltering among the American public. Even many of those who agree with President Bush's idea of personal savings invested through the government into selected stocks and funds seem to agree that the current system as we know it will soon go belly up, whenever the actual year may be. The matter is more about when than if.
The government should not be in the retirement business. I see nothing in Article 1, Section 8 that articulates this empowerment for the legislative branch, and nothing in Article 2, Section 2 that mentions it for the executive branch. Besides, if Congress and the President cannot agree when the system will go broke, how much money is in the trust fund, or if it even exists, Constitution aside, why should we trust them? A bank can calculate to the penny how much you pay and how often in a 30 year mortgage. What is the difference? Finance is mostly arithmetic with some speculation, usually predictable within reason, sprinkled in. Steve Forbes was correct in his analogy that money sent to Washington is like a pot of honey left in the forest with the bears. They will dip their paws into it, rub it on their faces, play with it, eat it, dip their faces into it, roll around in it, but rest assured you will never again see it or get it back. I particularly don't care if the problem is incompetence, corruption or both. The solution is the same, we need to get out of the current system. The Constitution shows that the government should not be controlling our retirement money for us, and its history of action (and inaction) for 70 years has proven it. Out!
Ironically, the one concrete point the President has driven home on this issue is personal savings, invested through the government into private stocks. Yes, privatization....sort of. The Democrats seem unified for matters seemingly strictly political, that all discussion will be off the table until that point is removed. Presumably in response, the President is now softening his tone about private investment. This is the time when the majority party needs to act like the majority party. Once again, the Democrats are screaming louder and more often than the Republicans, who should be utilizing their own form of the bully pulpit to support the President's plan, what we know of it. However, once again, the politically timid, impotent and naive Republicans in Congress are trying to play nice in the sand box with the venomous vipers from across the aisle who never heard of the Marquis of Queensbury Rules, let alone, true bipartisanship.
In response to the Social Security debate, many are citing a plan implemented by Galveston County, Texas for its public sector employees in 1981. At that time, County employees voted by a majority of 78% to opt out of Social Security. Neighboring Brazoria and Matagorda Counties followed suit in 1983, just before Congress enacted a law that closed that loop hole that allowed the exit. (Just a little obstacle to that pot of honey!) Most employees received returns anywhere from two to five times more than the return they would have received from Social Security. Most have raved about the plan, in spite of a recent Chicago Tribune article by Howard Witt on February 17 of this year, that did cite some disgruntled employees who said the option did not work well for them. Much of the argument behind the Democrats' refusal to consider private investments is that the stock market is a gamble. The selected stocks would be limited and low risk, plus in the Texas case, those employees still did well with their returns in spite of recessions and war over the years. Yes, there is a risk, albeit a low one. But is trusting the government with our money, given the government's past history and future predictions any less of a gamble? Sometimes we don't get to choose which is best. We only get to choose which is least worse. If you don't believe that, take a closer look and notice your available so-called choices on any given Election Day!
I support the President's plan. I think it is a good step in the right direction, but I would take it further. The question is worth repeating, why is the government in the retirement business? Why do we need the government as a middle man? Are we really all that hopeless and undisciplined? If so, then we deserve to starve to death. Why can't each American simply put away on his or her own, the same amount of money the government takes out of our pay check for Social Security? Why can't we then invest that money on our own, even with the same stocks? Why do we need the government to do that for us, and literally continually mismanage and embezzle our money for its whims? End the whole system now. To those who have paid in and not received, pay them off with what they are owed. To the many who have long since gotten back what they did pay in, shut them off at some point in the future. Again, OUT! I don't particularly care about some bizillionaire who has paid in and now wants his or her just desserts. They don't need it. The idea of taxation (to the extent this tax should even exist at all) is to benefit the general, not individual population. Do individual taxpayers get a rebate from the municipal school system if they have no kids enrolled in the public schools, or a rebate from the local fire department because their house never caught on fire? Should taxpayers enjoy a rebate from the Parks And Recreation Department in their town or city if they don't utilize those resources and activities? Such exemptions do not typically exist, and should not exist. Such limited allocation of tax revenues would defeat the entire purpose of funding government services. Social Security is as much as an excuse for many not to save as welfare is for many not to work. What part of the word "unconstitutional " do people fail to understand?
As World Net Daily editor Joe Farah recently and correctly noted in his February 10th column, "Bush's Budget Boondoggle," no one in Washington, with the exception of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) ever questions the constitutionality of any issue any more, and the once fiscally conservative Republicans are as much to blame as the Democrats. As Farah points out, as little as 20 years ago, issues like education were debated at the federal level with the litmus test of constitutionality, but no more. The federal government is now widely accepted to be the fiscal solution to everyone's woes, at the cost of solvency and economic and military security for our own country, let alone retirement, and the future in both regards looks even bleaker for our children and grandchildren because of our wanton, greedy, self centered, runaway spending, without any knowledge or regard for the ramifications. As radio commentator Rush Limbaugh recently observed, of the current approximate 2.5 trillion dollar federal budget, 60% is federal entitlements. National defense is the primary function of our allegedly limited federal government, as per our nation's framers. In the big picture, how does that measure up to funding entitlements and various fluff like the arts?
Meanwhile, China, the elephant in the room that everyone chooses to ignore for similar reasons of greed over patriotism, has been doubling its military budget for the past 15 consecutive years to soon take us on in what China once called an inevitable war over Taiwan, and China is using our 600 plus billion dollar trade deficit to do it. Economist Dr. Walter Williams once said he served on Congressional consulting committee regarding the budget and found that if the US strictly adhered to our Constitution, approximately 3/4 of our federal budget would be eliminated as well as an equal proportion of unconstitutional federal agencies. According to another Cato Institute essay by Chris Edwards on June 2, 2004, with necessary cuts in wasteful entitlements, over a five year period, the US would save about 300 billion dollars annually and have a balanced fiscal budget by 2009, including the incorporation of all of President Bush's proposed tax cuts. And now with President Bush wishing to extend federal spending caps (while still blaming the Congress for his own more than doubled increase in domestic spending since Bill Clinton's term, and in half as much time), and with the already unfunded boondoggle of expanded Medicare coverage now up from a projected 400 billion dollars to 720 billion dollars because the President failed to carry the one in his fuzzy math, it is becoming even more apparent why our founding fathers wanted a federal government with a very limited scope. So then, why Social Security?
Government dependence removes responsibility from the individual, and burdens the general populace. Some older folks will tell you that churches and charitable organizations give less to the poor and needy than before because they now expect the federal government to do more. Having worked as a coordinator for social justice in a former parish, I saw the same with my own eyes and could not believe the sanctimonious Pharisees that sat beside me at parish council meetings and called themselves "Christians." Family, friends, neighbors, and even individuals themselves all do less for themselves and others today because they expect the government to constantly play nursemaid to them and wipe their noses at every beckoned calling. Meanwhile, the economic and national security of our country and future is at grave risk, as also recently noted by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greesnspan, but who is listening? For President Bush's part, his fiscal policy is as convoluted and hypocritical as his foreign policy. He sanctions Cuba while giving China a pass. He wages war against terrorism in the middle east while ignoring our porous and seemingly open, if nonexistent border with Mexico. He implements tax cuts while increasing spending. He expands Medicare (another unconstitutional federal function of astronomical expense) while attempting to reform Social Security. To that extent, the privatization is a good idea, but having government coordinate privatization is still not actual privatization.
Some representatives (not leaders by any means) of our government say that elected officials are only responding to the wishes of the people. That may very well be true, but that is also why we supposedly have a representative republic as opposed to a democracy. Nevertheless, the blame is rightly wide spread, in and out of Washington. The mindset of the open palm needs to stop, and fiscal responsibility as well as more accountability need to replace that mind set. The American people cannot reform its elected officials until we reform ourselves. And our elected officials cannot reform Social Security until they themselves are reformed. Until that time, there will be little, if anything secure in our country, present, or future, socially, or otherwise.
Come on down and see how Republicans are continuing to lead in government reform in Galveston County, Texas.
[/sarcasm]
Your job exporting politics at work. The workers still exist only they are in China and elsewhere. So why not place a social security tax on imports. If Americans and American companies have to pay it, why should foreign goods come in tax free?
Weak!
Very god idea -- but will the all-mighty WTO agree?
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.