Posted on 05/25/2005 8:42:08 AM PDT by qam1
The debate over whether to reform Social Security is full of idiosyncrasies.
Here's a big one: No matter what fix we're talking about - partial privatization, raising the retirement age, means testing so millionaires forfeit benefits, tying benefits to inflation rather than wages, etc. - the most ferocious opposition comes from the demographic that won't be affected either way by any proposal being discussed at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue: Americans already 55 and over.
If you can imagine that, you're already two steps ahead of the Bush administration. White House officials seem baffled that their biggest fight has turned out to be with a group with whom the administration went out of the way to avoid picking a fight. The polls on this issue back that up. Most show the same trend: The older the polling sample, the less support you find for tinkering with Social Security. The younger the sample, the greater the support.
The more the administration tries to reassure seniors that they'll squeak by before any rule change takes effect, and so this debate doesn't concern them, the more concerned seniors get. Here's what the White House missed: This isn't just about self-interest. It's also about sentimentality. No other generation is as passionate - and therefore as protective - about Social Security as the World War II generation, those Americans now in their 70s and 80s. For that demographic, this debate is about preserving a program that served their generation well and which they hope will be around several decades from now to serve their grandchildren.
That's interesting. If they really wanted to protect their grandchildren, they'd do everything they could to ensure some generational fair play. Unless something is done, the current system will - 10 or 20 years from now - soak taxpayers with tax rates that experts say could easily top 50 percent when you combine income taxes with the payroll taxes necessary to fund Social Security and Medicare.
But there's no reasoning with the elderly on this issue. I know. I tried.
Recently, I agreed to sit on a panel here in Coronado and discuss Social Security reform. Home to a lot of retired naval officers, the well-to-do community has a reputation for being conservative. But you wouldn't know it from the way the audience - made up almost exclusively of senior citizens - seized every opportunity to tear into President Bush and his proposal to allow young people to invest part of the money they contribute to the current system into private accounts.
The way these seniors see it, this isn't about demographics and the undeniable fact that, with every year that goes by, we have fewer workers supporting more retirees. This isn't about the fact that Americans are living longer, and so it only makes sense to push back the retirement age.
For this crowd, the whole issue of reforming Social Security comes down to trusting George Bush. For those who don't, it's tempting to buy the argument that the administration is manufacturing a crisis to gin up public support for a scheme that will make a fortune for ''Bush's friends on Wall Street.''
Judging from their questions and comments, that's what many in the Coronado audience believed. And they couldn't get past it. They insisted on making the issue political, when it's really generational.
That disappointed me. So did the fact that these seniors had convinced themselves that there was no ''crisis'' in Social Security because the best estimates are that benefits will continue to be paid out for the foreseeable future. They didn't seem to care a whit about the financial strain that future taxpayers will be put under to make that happen. This is the real crisis.
You know what else was disappointing? That many of the seniors were so openly contemptuous of the idea of letting poor and working people invest their own money in private retirement accounts. To listen to these seniors, the less well-off aren't smart enough to know what to invest where, and so need the government to provide them with a guaranteed benefit.
Putting aside the rank condescension, such comments were horribly naive. Given the demographic changes ahead - beginning with the retirement of 70 million baby boomers - don't expect the Social Security system to give out any guarantees or to honor them if it does.
That's something that older generations need to understand - and which younger generations figured out a long time ago.
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effect Gen-Reagan/Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
What a Jerk.
No, it's full of idiots. Starting with the AARP and the media.
Whether or not he's a jerk, his analysis is spot-on in this column, IMO.
The AARP rag I just read found some moron who said the return on private accounts would not match the current system.
So government black hole of spending is better than money working in the economy?
The "Greatest Generation" turned into the "Greediest Generation"
They have nothing to lose if social security goes bust. They won't be here.
I respect your right to have an opinion and post it. Have a nice day.
All we Gen-X/Gen-Y have to do is wait until enough of the baby boomers are too senile to vote or are 6 feet under, then we can vote Social Security into oblivion and leave them hanging out to dry.
I'm not putting much faith in this, though, so I am working hard now to amass a small fortune, then stash it in Switzerland somewhere and move myself to Belize or Costa Rica.
Add me to your list.
We need to START with auto cuts in soc security NOW!
Our generation has our benes cut twice already.
With thier high ROI, it is the seniors turn to buck up.
The $$ has to be in your name or you can't count on it whether it's the governemnt or your employer-funded pension plan. that is the lesson I preach to my kids. Only if it's in your name can you count on it being there for your retirement. My husband and I bith have employer-funded pensions. We are only 5 years from having 30 years in. It will be tempting to retire and take the money while it's still there. Happily, we have the option of taking it in a lump sum.
Thanks to the Ponzi scheme we are tied to, we are today screwing ourselves and our children. Irrevocably.
It doesn't matter whether you save the money yourself outside Social Secuirty, and plan on financing your retirement with it. Where do you think the government is going to go when Socialistic Security starts to go bankrupt? They will confiscate private savings held in its various forms. This was an idea floated before early in the Clinton administration. It will not only wreck the economy, it will personally bankrupt each and every one of us.
And the greedy American public is too stupidly short-sighted to realize it.
You know what else was disappointing? That many of the seniors were so openly contemptuous of the idea of letting poor and working people invest their own money in private retirement accounts. To listen to these seniors, the less well-off aren't smart enough to know what to invest where, and so need the government to provide them with a guaranteed benefit.
As someone looking at 50 next year I'm not sure what all this will bring for me. Nonetheless, I do support private accounts for younger folks. People need to own the fruits of the labor. However it should be no surprise to any of us that so many are desperately addicted to the nanny state and that monthly check. They (as well as me) were told all our lives that the money that came out of our checks would go for us - of course it was a nanny-state lie. What I'd say to all you Gen-X'ers who are trying to find a way to pay for healthcare, be warry of signing on to nice-sounding universal health care plans for all. Nothing's free.
LOL Thanks for pointing that out.
Take the lump sum, quickly. I did when I left after 18 years of employment.
But beware my previous post. When the financial catastrophe of social security really begins, the government will confiscate your money anyway. After all, you, with your private savings, will be the "ants" in the minority, and the "majority" of grasshoppers will vote themselves to your money.
So much for "The Greatest Generation," eh?
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.