Posted on 03/26/2006 4:14:52 AM PST by fifthvirginia
This much is certain: The welfare state as we know it cannot survive. No serious student of entitlements thinks that we can let federal spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid rise from its current 9% of gross domestic product to the 28% of GDP that it will consume in 2050 if past growth rates continue. The problems facing transfer programs for the poor are less dramatic but, in the long term, no less daunting; the falling value of a strong back and the rising value of brains will eventually create a class society making a mockery of America's ideals unless we come up with something more creative than anything that the current welfare system has to offer.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Pie in the sky B.S.
Isn't the author of this article the person who wrote the Bell Curve? I only browsed the book (my Indian roomate in college had a copy) but I recall it causing quite a stir on campus at the time.
Very interesting read, but doesn't explain how we would employ all the administrators of the welfare state. Of course, forcing them to find a useful career in a volunteer organization at a greatly reduced level of income would have the same beneficial effects as workfare had on career gubmint teat suckers.
Yes, he is.
Just a thought....
How about if we only deliver mail 3 days a week and reduce the Post Office accordingly? How about if we don't pay for booze, drugs and hookers for Katrina "victims" (and Gov. employees)? How about if we get rid of "make work" jobs in the Gov., you know, like Mrs. Joe Wilson(Valerie Plame)?
How about if we reduce Government so it only take the first 40 pages of the phone book, instead of 80?
Amtrak?
NPR?
Geesh
Bet there is actually a few fools who would suggest importing millions more of immigrants to shore up the tax base. Kindda like the thinking goes in AZ govt. here: We have a water and power crunch so the officials rationalize we need even greater water and power demands by building 250,000 new homes.
I believe you are correct. Great stuff!
If nothing else, his premise is not flawed.
I like your plan, AS A START.
It is in fact flawed, and I'm not sure what world the author is living in. Welfare states are all around us surviving. They are the rule, not the exception, and their citizens would have nothing else. I would say that the U.S. is more likely to deepen its welfare dependency than reduce it.
He's right: America is rich enough to do this; the worry point is what will "individuals actually do" with the cash they receive each year. Mr. Murray addresses the worry rather neatly in his article. Bottomline: Murray is right: Tough love and a love of this country, and freedom are mandatory to dealing with this upcoming horrorshow.
We can afford to contribute $2,000 a year and invest it in an index-based stock fund.
Some of the anti-change/anti-plan for the future Democrat Economists are screeching that it is unfair to tie this sort of program to price-index-based stock; but propose "wage" index-based stock. Oh my.. put a ding into other liberal socialist programs. Oh! The Horror, they say.
Excellent article, Mr. Murray.
For the record in re the origins of SS: The idea of charity and assistance regarding economic security is nothing new at all. Families tended to look after each other and care for each other in times of hardship which in turn led to the formation of Guilds to accomplish a community sense of economic security:
snip: Among early U.S. fraternal organizations that we are familiar with even into the present day were: the Freemasons (which came to America in 1730); the Odd Fellows (1819); Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks (1868); Loyal Order of Moose (1888); and the Fraternal Order of Eagles (1898)."--end snip
However, beginning in the mid-1880s four important demographic changes happened in America: the Industrial Revolution, urbanization of America, the disappearance of the extended family, and a marked increase in life expectancy which altered the then-traditional manners by which citizens cared for those with infirmities and lacking economic security, culminating into a crisis when the Great Depression was upon America.
--snipIn the 1930s, Huey Long, a Louisiana Governor, known commonly as “The Kingfish” put forward a plan to redistribute the wealth of the wealthy in order to provide for the poor, calling his program “Share Our Wealth”. His program called upon the “federal government to guarantee every family in the nation an annual income of $5,000, so they could have the necessities of life, including a home, a job, a radio and an automobile. He also proposed limiting private fortunes to $50 million, legacies to $5 million, and annual incomes to $1 million. Everyone over age 60 would receive an old-age pension. His slogan was "Every Man A King." --end snip
There were many others who harkened to similar schemes of wealth confiscation and redistribution as a means to care for the burgeoning population of aged, infirm, incapacitated and unemployed such as Francis E. Townsend, Father Charles Coughlin, Upton Sinclair, the National Ham and Eggs organization, Reverend Herbert S. Bigelow spawning movements and groups throughout the US clamoring for socialist programs. A momentum was begun.
President Hoover expounded upon the idea of “volunteerism” as a means to address this problem of economic insecurity. However, up until the Great Depression, it worked well, but not during or afterwards. A much more solidly and substantively mapped out plan was required to deal with an increasingly clear problem of economics in order to move the US into the next century.
With the populist movement clamoring for socialist economic redistributions, on June 8, 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, announced his intention to provide a program for Social Security of lasting means. And on August 14, 1935, The Social Security Act was signed into law, enacting a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement. This was not the full dream as put forward by Progressive and the Populists, but it did provide a wide range of programs: additional to social security, it included unemployment insurance, old-age assistance, aid to dependent children.
The first stage required the assigning of social security numbers. Next, the first Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes were collected, beginning in January 1937. Special Trust Funds were created for these dedicated revenues. Benefits were then paid from the money in the Social Security Trust Funds.
Many more additions to the concept of Social Security have been added since the program’s first inception, and more and more Americans have come to see SSI as an “income” as opposed to the original program of providing a safety net.
More data on how to reform SS can be found The Fast Facts on Social Security Reform
I look at the horror-show going down in certain locations around the country over PENSIONS (San Diego, etc.), and these are a SNAPSHOT micropicture of what will happen when SS goes bust as it absolutely will.
And in re the Dem Economists screeching about tieing to the wage-index. SNORT!
Been there, seen it. What they are proposing will create a MAJOR "class-based" system. For example, I remember when SF Union Wranglers were tying Firefighter Pensions to.. the wages made pre-retirement. You make $90/K a year.. you get $90K/ based indexing each year in retirement income. These conversations went "under the table" as the mention of "pension" designee/beneficiaries came up. Can a retired Firefighter designate a beneficiary to receive his retirement benefits? For how long? Can that designee then designate another beneficiary?
You get the picture, no doubts. And which is why I strongly disagree with the Libbies proposal to tie Retirement to "wage-based indexing".
SS began as a socialist clamor for wealth redistribution. President Roosevelt saw the need to begin a program to ensure what happened then, wouldn't happen in the future -- with the success of the American Capitalist Model, not only was there to be a safety net for those WHO were AGED/INFIRM and ELDERLY and unable to provide for themselves, the American Economy needed to expand a market.
For more Info on Social Security and Reform:
Strengthening Social Security for Future Generations: Presidential Action
Final Report of the President’s Commission, December 21, 2001
For an idea about HOW HUGE that SS PAIN is going to be: Curse of the Young Old: Why Should We Pay Them?”
And now for the arguments AGAINST privatizing Social Security or making any substantial corrections to the upcoming crisis: The 10 Myths of Social Security
Ironically, the only why to save this 'welfare state' is to pass HR-25/Fairtax.
Tell me exactly what is flawed about this statement.
How about elections for all State offices would ONLY be by "absentee" paper ballot.
For the form to use for the paper ballot, I propose that each State add a new section to each State's income tax forms.
An added benefit is the built-in ID to vote.
All we have to do after that is put in place, is sit back and watch for changes in our elected officials, and how they act.
Tell me exactly what is flawed about this statement.
The man who wrote it is a dreaded neo-conservative friend of Bill(Kristol)?
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.