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.
I was just going by what you said.
AMT
Structered products or principle protected notes are becoming more popular, since they guarentee return of your with upside.
I was actually helping bolster your argument about the futility of keeping the system afloat.....
Sending the money overseas had occurred to me, too. My only concern is "be careful where you go." What you don't want to do is put all the money in a country where they will do the same thing (confiscation) to finance their own Ponzi scheme (so don't put it in Europe). The other concern is to pick a country where they have some sort of sweetheart financial deal with the US whereby they grab the money of US citizens as a credit against overwhelming trade deficits. So forget Asia and most of South America.
I guess that leaves Mozambique. I hear the Indian Ocean coast there is lovely.
When it comes to being screwed by governments, I am pretty much counting on it.
I was born at the tail end of the Baby Boomers... Can I stick with the Gen X and Y :)
1] Dithyramb: "A Greek choric hymn, originally in honour of Dionysus or Bacchus, vehement and wild in character
I am working on explaining that to her. If we get the word "stocks" out of it she is more comfortable. When I remind her that my husband died before ever being able to collect his, then she understands better. Anyway, please understand and I am all for it. I am probably the same age as your mama. 55. So, I will vote for whichever next president will go along with changing social security so you younger folks can invest your money if President Bush does not get it passed during his term in office.
Only if you're a dude.
(would've been something to witness)
I will have to talk to my broker.
Nope.
He's writing from frustration at the stupidity, at the selfishness, and at the ignorance and bias OF the current seniors.
All these errors and prejudices, of course, are being exploited and reinforced BY the democrats and the media (but I repeat myself!) to prevent Bush from fixing the SS problem.
Thanks to propaganda from the AARP, Democrat demagogues and the all-too-willing MSM. The so-called "Greatest Generation" turned quickly into the "Socialist Generation."
Good to hear. As long as she doesn't fall into the same category as described in the article, the category of obstructionism, then I have no issues.
"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."
It's really about "we're used to the idea of getting hand-outs", 1st proffered by that god called FDR.
Greatest gen, my butt. 1st gen to start milking the system. As well as to teach the younger 1s it's all OK and normal and a RIGHT.
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.