Posted on 01/08/2008 5:58:42 PM PST by Vigilanteman
The first of the Baby Boomers filed for retirement benefits starting January 1, 2008. Millions more will follow in the near future. The system is set to collapse without either a massive increase in taxes, a massive reduction in benefits or a combination of the two.
Everyone knows this, but nobody wants to do anything about it-- at least not openly. Some politicians feel we may buy a little more time by flooding the country with illegal immigrants who, it is hoped, will pay taxes but not stick around to collect benefits. This is, at best, wishful thinking since, as their numbers grow, so does their political and economic clout. If there are any taking their earnings, going home and starting new businesses in their home countries, those numbers are greatly exceeded by the new ones coming here, legally, illegally and by birthright citizenship.
A more likely scenario is that the influx of poorly educated low wage earners will bring the entire system to its day of reckoning sooner rather than later as their tax contributions will be nowhere near the benefit entitlements their massive numbers and political power will demand.
But there is an effective and low-cost solution. It is likely to be popular with most of the American public except for a relatively small but powerful interest group-- Government workers. Has anyone noticed that when the economy does well, we need to hire more government workers to oversee and manage the growth. When the economy stagnates, we need to hire more government workers to cope with the stagnation. And when the economy dives, we still need to hire more government workers to deal with the crisises brought about by a recession. Businesses may add or cut people depending on the cyclical needs of a business. But the government, particularly at the national level, will always add more employees no matter what. If the Democrats control Washington, they'll add them faster. If the Republicans control Washington, they'll add them slower. But they will always add them.
Since those who collect social security represent a net drain on the treasury as do those who work for the government, why not combine the two? Certainly, the people who paid in to social security feel like they are entitled to collect on their contributions, but the fact is that most of their "contributions" went to pay a previous beneficiary, so there is nothing to pay them except new money from new taxpayers . . . and there simply aren't enough new taxpayers coming into the system to keep it solvent unless, as we all know, there are massive tax increases, massive benefit reductions or a combination of the two.
How likely are politicians to agree on such a solution? The government employee unions such as SEIU would naturally object. So would the heads of the government fiefdoms. But their is a carrot as well. Read on.
With the exception of law enforcement and military functions, are there any government jobs which older Americans couldn't do? Think hard. Whether justified or not, most criticisms of older workers pretty much parallel criticisms of government workers-- slow, bureaucratic, more concerned with procedures than results, afraid of new technology and not adaptable being among the most common.
Would any efficiency really be lost by replacing government workers with older workers? More than likely, efficiency would improve because most of the older workers would come with experience in the private sector where they expect results. The initial deal influx of older workers would be simple enough-- any older worker who foregos social security would get a year-on-year income replacement with a government job. All new government workers (except for very limited exceptions such as law enforcement or military where youth and agility is an absolute neccessity) would have to be hired from the pool of older workers willing to make the trade: no social security in return for a government job or even a combination such as 40% reduction in social security in return for a two day a week government job. This would be the only way to grow the government workforce. The government unions realize they may actually have more potential pockets to pick for union dues, albeit with some of those not likely to be receptive.
But how would such a workforce be recruited since the boomers would be entitled to social security anyway? Well, that's the beauty of the plan. Every year a boomer works is a year of social security saved is a year closer to the day the boomer dies and collects nothing. Plus there are boomers who are patriotic, deeply patriotic. For every boomer who did drugs, protested and/or engaged in promiscuious sex, there is another who lived seriously, served their country or and/or raised great kids. A patriotic appeal (We need your experience for our country) as well an economic incentive (you'll make a lot more as a government worker than collecting social security) would be more than enough to recruit volunteers.
The bigger problem would be creating the openings necessary to absorb all the volunteers. This would be the next phase of the wildly successful program to get as many older Americans as possible off social security.
This is also where the political resistence would get severe. Yet, compared to the impending bankruptcy of the social security program or the alternative of severe taxation of the remaining working population, such resistence would not be insurmountable. There would be a mandatory retirement for government workers at age 40. The process could be phased in and announced in advance to give those workers time to look for alternatives in the private sector. They could be reminded that by retiring now, they would have experience and pay grade classifications to get a leg up on another government job assignment in another 22 years or so.
Star performers might get a year by year extension of their mandatory retirement date. Poor performers, perhaps the lowest quintile of each group, could be retired starting at age 35. This is not a novel concept to those who have worked in the competitive environment of the private sector.
With adjustments of the key inputs (mandatory retirements at age 40, performance based retirements starting at age 35, availability of new program volunteers and demand for more government workers), the entire social security program could be stabalized until a real long-term solution could be enacted such as privatization.
This is only the start of the program benefits. Government workers and private sector workers would no longer work in parallel universes. There would be a sense of shared fate. Government workers just might be reluctant to wreck businesses in the private sector by knowing they would be expected to find a job there mid career. Private businesses might think twice about putting an older worker out to pasture considering they might come back as a government auditor to visit them.
The biggest benefit, however, might very will be a whole generation entering the workforce who wouldn't view a government job as a lifetime entitlement. That, and as the baby boom generation passes into history we might, for once, actually be able to shrink the every growing size of the government.
Could one (or more) of the presidential candidates please steal this idea as their own?
I like your idea on principle. My other idea would be simply to get rid of it altogether (yes, my big wish) and offer tax-free retirement accounts for all citizens, where they could sock up to 10% of their income (or assets) in every year.
Of course, people who don’t have income would be pissed off. But government (ie the rest of us, when it comes to social program handouts) does not have standing to be your caretaker.
I happen to be one of the government workers he is speaking about. I also happen to know a great deal about this topic. My past experience includes serving my country in the military. Not behind the lines either. I left the military, earned my college degree, worked in the private sector for a number of years (successfully), was self employed (successfully), and then returned to work for the Federal Government.
I watch anti government vitriol of this kind come and go and don’t even blink an eye. But this article was such an example of worthless drivel I just couldn’t help creating an account and replying.
In short, if the author actually knew anything about government workers he would know that it’s the older generation that is usually the problem. You all know the type. They’ve been in the job for a long time. They are tired. They don’t care much (if at all), anymore. They don’t work as hard. They don’t want to learn anymore. They’ve lost their ability to empathise. Or they’ve just plain lost their abilities. Ninety percent of my operational problems come from these people and the author wants to fill the government with these people? Are you kidding me?
Did it ever occur to this guy that the people willing to accept this kind of criticism on a daily basis might actually be the most patriotic people in the country? Dedicated public servants love their country and care about their fellow citizens. They actually want to make a difference. I sometimes long for the days of the 1-2 hour lunch breaks I had in the private sector while I’m wolfing down lunch on my 1/2 hour! I could go on and on.
His facts regarding the state of the trust fund are also grossly inaccurate. If you are receiving benefits now or planning on doing so anytime soon, you have nothing to worry about. If you are from Generation X, then you have a legitimate complaint.
I’m not against personal accounts but most people (especially this author), grossly discount the complexity of the Social Security program. Private accounts will not create the same entitlement program that we have today (meening a lot of people are going to receive less or nothing at all). People who are realy disabled for example. Surviving children of parents who deceased too early in life. I could go on. I’m not necessarily against private accounts but there are serious trade offs if we go with that solution.
The program as it exists is actually a good one. The real problem is that the trust fund has been raided for decades. That’s not the Social Securities Administration’s fault (nor their choice). Unfortunately the damage is done.
Lastly, if you don’t think the average government worker is competent, feel free to put down the golf clubs at your hard working “private sector” job, and come on over to make a difference.
That “WE” would be you and the mouse in your pocket, right? It’s patently offensive for you to lump all the boomers together. As another boomer, I can honestly say that I’ve never recommended, or agreed, that the way to fund thoughtless, unconstitutional Federal programs was by stealing from the SS trust monies.
In fact, I’ve railed against this obvious skullduggery since I’ve been paying into the system (also not by own choosing) over the past 40+ years. But, all my harping and yelling has been about as productive as pi$$ing into the wind...no good results.
Johnson’s Great Society crappola was an extension of the original sinner in this model...FDR, and his decidedly wrongheaded interpretation of the General Welfare clause of the US Constitution. That sea change represents the genesis of the Nanny State, IMO. “Hello, I’m from the Government and I’m here to help you.”
It’s time to reclaim this grand experiment; reestablish a politics of individual responsibility, and a government that governs less rather than more. Surely to God, we’ve seen enough of the Welfare state and it’s predictable outcome of breeding multiple generations of dependent citizens, all because someone convinced others that spending government money wasn’t spending the people’s money, and wasn’t spending your money and my money.
Stupidly shortsighted.
I salute you for your service and suspect that you are the hard-working, competent exception to your profession. Or, perhaps you are working for the Pentagon, Law Enforcement or other necessary and core function of the Federal Government.
You would have nothing to worry about under a plan such as outlined above because you've proved yourself competent and successful in a number of fields.
Most of the rest of us, however, have come into contact with slothful government workers who are there to collect a paycheck or build a fiefdom and little else. And from what I've observed, age doesn't make much of a difference, attitude does. And attitude knows no age boundries in or out of the private sector. Some of the most competent and dedicated government workers have been old, very old. William Casey and J. Edgar Hoover come to mind.
Sorry if you took this as a personal attack. It is not. Some very well-run governments actually use seniors to staff their services. Next time you go through a TSA checkpoint or pay a toll to a kid with an attitude on the Pennsyvania Turnpike (average wage = $24/hour), ask yourself if this is something an older American might be doing instead of collecting social security. And these are only two examples.
Xer Ping
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations 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.
Smart people are planning for their retirement years without factoring in SS as income needed to sustain a comfortable life. When I retire I will have no debts and a monthly income of about $7000. If I do get SS, it’ll just be gravy. But I figure by the time I hit 66 SS will have means testing to help push back the day of reckoning when the whole system collapses.
Notice how none of the candidates seem to be mentioning social security? I sure do.
There IS no permanent “solution” to Social Security because it’s nothing but a political racket, not an “investment” in the true sense of the word.
Social Security exists for one purpose—to buy votes from the age group that votes in the largest percentages, by stealing money from groups that vote in lower percentages.
Social Security has fulfilled that purpose. It bought the votes it was designed to buy for the past 73 years. Now it’s crashing. There’s no way to fix it because of demographics. It was never about “security” and it was never about the economy. It was just a grand scheme of political corruption.
I’m not interested in fixing it or saving it. You might as well talk about “saving” or “fixing” the Mafia. And Social Security is a greater moral blot on this nation than the Mafia ever was. Other than protection rackets, at least the Mafia provided people with products they wanted: prostitutes, alcohol, drugs, and entertainment. Social Security has accomplished only evil: corrupting citizens with stolen money, buying votes, electing lying, thieving people to public office.
Permanent tax increases...none of which will actually be used to solve the Social Security problem, right?
Dad? Is that you?
:o)
Whatever you do, don't die before you are 100. You won't get your money back.
I say that we should just allow the system to run until it collapses. When the monthly SS credits stop showing up in Mr. & Mrs. AARP’s bank accounts, the problem is solved.
he lost me at “hello”.....
I deal with state government people for the most part a LOT, and not only do the majority of them have the common sense of a bag of rocks, they consistently spend LARGE amounts of time making up new standards, lowering limits, and manufacturing new "scares" in order to promulgate their job security and numbers...
Granted, this is in California, so you may have a concession on that facet...
“You may think you’re joking. take a close look at the history of the Third Reich. they didn’t start with the Jews.”
I don’t advocate or joke about the deaths of anyone, well anyone except child rapists, terrorists, drug lords, and traitors.
That last category pretty much includes todays liberal crowd. They advocate euthanasia on our loving grandmas, grandpas, and anyone else deemed to be beyond their useful service life. Fair is fair.
I don’t even go down the road of what I could have earned on that same $100K (not counting the match from my company)on my own.
Just give me what I’m told I’m supposed to get, if not we have trouble.
As someone who qualified for the Senior Discount at Denny’s last year, I say Social Security doesn’t need to be saved, it needs to have a stake driven through its heart.
but the fact is that most of their “contributions” went to pay a previous beneficiary, so there is nothing to pay them except new money from new taxpayersSomebody better start breeding fast, because I plan on getting my checks starting at the end of the year. I’ve put over $100 grand into this Ponzi scheme and want some of it back.
Your post encapsulates the contradictory (fraudulent) nature of the Social Security scam:And I think that is the bottom line. The reality is that SS is a scam, because in fact the current-accounts surplus has been "invested" in government bonds - and although you and I would be thrilled to have a $1 billion government bond, when the government prints that bond it is both an asset and an equal liability to the government. Which only means that the bonds in the "Social Security Trust Fund" are simply fiat money which would, if put on the market to pay for the Retirement Boom, be an engine of inflation. As financial assets to the government they are a paper tiger.
- there are people who paid in a pittance in "Payroll Tax" and got many times that amount in benefits.
- OTOH people born later have put in a lot of money over the years - 7.5% of their salary, plus the hidden 7.5% which the employer has to pay and which comes out of the package of compensation which the employer takes into account when deciding how much to offer you in salary/wages. And let's face it, if or forty years you invested 15% of your salary in short-term government bonds - so that you kept up with inflation, and earned a little real interest - you would have a tidy sum available to retire on at age 65.
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.