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.
"If these contributions were as large people think, then this should be a good deal for them."
They could keep my last 20 years worth of contributions if they gave me the option to exit SS entirely. I'd come out way ahead in the long run.
"There are some older people who were less fortunate, who did not have good educations, nor the job opportunities that many of us did. Therefore, they need more help than many of us do."
So, why not just eliminate SS benefits for the people that planned well and made good choices in life. Your stance is more supportive of welfare than I see from most liberals. Success and luck have very little in common.
Your rhetoric sounds as if it comes directly from a set of DNC talking points.
I'm pro-family, MY family. Why should my kids be saddled with an onerous tax burden for the benefit of folks who made poor choices (or no choices at all)? Social Security has only been around for about seventy years. How did all the old Grannies survive before that?
I think you are mistaking "charity" for "government welfare." As a Christian (and pro-family) I am told by God to help those in need. But that is my responsibility. It is not the governemnt's job to take it at the point of a gun, which is what we have now.
Compassion does not equal more of my tax money confiscated to give to others. Especially as Social Security is given to all seniors, whether they are poor or filthy rich; and social security taxes are taken from all younger workers, whether they are poor or filthy rich.
It's wrong and needs to be reformed in my view.
Why thank you. You are so kind. :^)
The greatest fraud ever FORCED on free people has been built by socialists on the backs of dead Americans.
She should not be forcing her opinions on other people.
You're pushing the Bush line that "compassion" is equated with government-enforced welfarism. If Social Security is completely dismantled, there'd be nothing forcing you or anyone else to "step over" anyone's "bodies". You and everyone else will still be free to show them all the compassion you want. Having government take over the "compassion" ethic is a seriously misguided idea.
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 the retirement age is raised, wont they be affected?
I'm actually not sure if we agree on all that much. I don't believe in taxpayer-funded welfare. Period. Taxpayer-funded welfare is *not* "compassionate". It's theft.
The taxpayers shouldn't be forced to fork over money to people who just happen to have reached a certain age and/or "made poor choices in life", especially if they are healthy enough to keep working.
Why is it that supporters of SS never consider that folks should KEEP WORKING until they can personally afford to stop? Retirement is not a right.
Why is it that supporters of SS never consider giving people the choice of opting out?
Count me as one of those cynics. Hopefully I won't be hijacking the thread by pointing this out, but I look at the illegal immigration issue now, where something like 75%-80% of the population wants to see the borders secured. But the press is hostile to the idea, and the politicians like things the way they are now, so nothing happens. When both candidates for a particular spot don't share the views of the majority of the voters, there's not a whole lot the voters can do about it. They can vote third-party, of course, but that would have to happen on the assumption that the voters care only about this one issue to the exclusion of all others. Otherwise, by voting third-party they would (in their estimation) be giving up their influence on the outcome of the election, and thereby give up their influence on all of the other issues of importance to them.
When it comes to Social Security, all that would need to happen is for the leading Republican politicians to say that they're opposed to complete privatization, and instantly anyone who disagrees with that view (even if it happens to be shared by 80% of the population) will get labeled a "right-wing extremist ideologue". The fact is, a majority of people can have a particular view, but a majority isn't a self-aware entity. If each person is made to think that his view is extreme and in the minority, he'll be mostly silent about it. There will be few major spokesmen for the view, and those will be villified by the press. And the non-stop subtle propaganda will be to the effect that there are limits to "respectable" opinion. The individual voter will resign himself to that state of affairs and continue, like he always does, to vote for a major-party candidate so as to get as much mileage out of his vote as possible, even though that mileage continues to dwindle over time.
Believe me, this is easier to sell than a cut it now approach, which would be fine, except for the voting patterns of the AARP crowd.
Except that under Bush's plan, young contributors would no longer be contributing to their elders' retirement anyway, so it wouldn't make the slightes bit of difference to the AARP crowd whether the younger set is allowed to do with their money as they see fit or not.
I know the whole theme of this thread is that the AARP crowd doesn't care whether it makes a difference to them or not, but I don't buy it. I think it's their genuine perception that it will affect them. And unfortunately, I think the President has done very little to counter that perception.
Amen! And again I say, amen!
More fees and taxes sure, but from a much greater revenue base because private accounts have far greater returns. Add to that that doing that will insure SS solvency. Its a far better plan than doing nothing. Government is never the solution to the problem, but at least economists are at the controls of that side of the debate in this case, and its definitely a step in the right direction. Even Red China uses a similar system now, what does that tell you about private accounts???
Of course the AARP generation believes the Bush plan will affect them. (1) Its Bush and of course he lies, and (2) The democrats who never lie have told them that any that is taken away from the payroll tax will cut their benefits. There is only one source the elders believe and believe until they are scarred. (They also believe there is a SS trust fund, because they are told that there is by Ted Kenedy.)
The Bush plan is to take 4% of the 12% for private accounts. This leaves 8% still paid to the government so they can spend it. This is not a total committment to investment, it is a compromise as so many Bush plans are. But you can't compromise with a bunch of old scared people. But they vote in numbers far greater than the young kids who are the ones who will pay and pay and get nothing. Eventually they will be more vocal. Someday the time will be right to see a fix. I only hope they don't raise taxes and extend the retirement collection age, because then we will continute the present socialist program and I would like to see more people seduced to capitalism before it is too late.
That may be oversimplifying things a bit. Bush did carry Florida, after all. I think a greater part of the reason for their nervousness is that no one from the administration has really tried to explain it to them. This is a point that Bush needs to hammer over and over again, that he's not proposing to take away benefits from current retirees, and he needs to explain in relative detail what in fact he is proposing. Just as an example, instead of having each and every one of his radio addresses devoted to lofty talk about "spreading freedom around the world" or some such, he could devote a few such programs to explaining his plan, free from the meddling media middleman.
But regardless of whether retirees believe him, one thing they can't deny is that whatever money goes toward a private account for a young contributor will not go toward their own retirements. Hence, they would have to know that it won't make the slightest difference to them whether these young people are required to invest in some government-approved portfolio, or are allowed to do with their own money as they see fit.
I don't disagree, however, I believe in honoring committments, and I guess you don't. Whether it's right or wrong, there are scores of older people who're counting on what they were promised.
Why is it that supporters of SS never consider that folks should KEEP WORKING until they can personally afford to stop? Retirement is not a right.
That's almost too stupid to deserve a response, but I'll give it one anyway. Most older people find that they can't work. Often times simply because of health reasons. Other times, they just can't find work. I remember the dissapointment my father faced in his last years when no one would hire an old man, and he wanted to work. The whole notion that everyone can just keep on trucking until they can "afford" to retire is laughable.
Well, if the worst anyone can ever say of me is that I pushed the Bush agenda, I'm doing well. I'll take Bush's reasoned solutions over the "Throw'em to the dogs rhetoric" I'm reading here any day.
If Social Security is completely dismantled, there'd be nothing forcing you or anyone else to "step over" anyone's "bodies". You and everyone else will still be free to show them all the compassion you want. Having government take over the "compassion" ethic is a seriously misguided idea.
You just don't get it do you? Stepping over bodies was a metaphor. Our society, as least as it stands now simply will not tolerate the type of poverty you see abroad in our countrymen. We will move to stop it, and if you don't like it, tough. Unlike Indians, Americans wouldn't let Chicago (to pick a city at random) turn into Calcuta. Americans would do something. Thank God I'm an American.
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.