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?
Maybe not today, when the first boomers are starting to retire. But certainly by the point that those numbers reach critical mass and voting power capable of overcoming the government employee unions.
Translated into present day vernacular of the street this means, WE ARE GONNA GET SCREWED AGAIN!!!!!!!!!
My initial reaction to the article was the same as yours. But let me go beyoind that. IMO "saving" the program only grants it legitimacy. Let's call it what it is. It's socialism, pure and simple. Stop taxing private citizens for Social Security, and let people take responsibility for their own retirements with their own dollars.
Raise the earnings limit.
Will never happen. Government sees government jobs as free welfare for certain segments of the population, and that does not include ordinary people. The IRS is 50% affirmative action hires (which explains the incompetency)
....Dedicated public servants love their country and care about their fellow citizens. They actually want to make a difference....
....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.
So you’re going to tell the oldsters they have to work after retirement? Good luck with that.
Nope. Read it again. They get a better paying government job for every year they delay collecting social security.
The post-boomers get to avoid hefty tax increases until it becomes politically possible to privatize the current Ponzi plan.
Best of all, they get the opportunity to shrink government as the boomers die off.
The only losers are the younger and, initially, the most incompetent government workers. They can do the jobs we supposedly need the illegal aliens do.
Well, not exactly......Ol' LBJ needed money for his war back then, and didn't want US to see what that did to the budget of the day. SO,.....he hid it by combining the SocSec bucks with the general fund--- ,made it look all OK to us dummies, Right?
The Dem congresses of the day and those that followed saw this as OPPORTUNITY!.. See how well off we are...they said. This fraud is continuing to this day except now even the SocSec funds are not enough....just my view of course....
Bump.
stop paying benefits to immigrants who never paid into the system.
Will never happen........
Same could be said of every generation whom squandered FICA money in a fiat banking system for almost a hundred years. Based on your attitude, your one of the boomers I don’t mind supporting. As for the hippie/welfare climate of the 1960’s they were a minority rather then the majority and the fleas come with the dog.
If I have any complaint about the boomer generation is that it did not pay attention to the writing on the wall in 1979 and 1980 to drastically decrease foreign oil dependance. In fact it increased another 20% between then and now, mainly from population growth but also because of bad policy driven by greedy politicians at the top.
Indeed. It will be my generation (I am 37) that will see a hold or even decrease of monthly benefits when I retire. In other words my ratio of what I put in vs. what I get out will be a lot smaller. I would like to someday see the option to put my SS into an investment accounts instead of this Ponzi scheme.
“You can’t cry over what you can’t change, but my contention is; do not come to me now and tell me we’re broke and you don’t get anything. I for one will not except that answer, someone will pay.”
I vote for you to pay the difference. Either that or we could start sending Americans to Mexico to live off their government.
Couldn’t they just put SS payments into a real lockbox? I thought the real problem was the wide usage of these funds for other government shortfalls.
Something like the French Revolution.
Thank you for the insights.
Would this include military too?
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.