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 am sorry I just read the answer to my question.
Here’s my idea......there are probably a LOT of people that really don’t their SS money for retirement. I say that if anyone wants to “sacrifice” it for the sake of their country, just as our Military sacrifices, they should be able to and be PRESENTED with A MEDAL of HONOR and SACRIFICE....something to show for their sacrifice. I know it sounds corny, but I hear liberals talk about we aren’t asked to sacrifice anything, and I say this would beone way to do that and have a CERTIFICATE to show for it.
That will help big time especially I find it ridiculous that 50 year old folks from other countries can come here and work 10 years and start collecting a check for the rest of their lives is ludicrous. I think you come here at 50 than the EARLIEST you are eligible to collect as long as you completed 120 quarters would be 80 years old. That would help so much. The quarters MUST BE RAISED!!! People are eligible for SS when they are 28 if they begin working at 18...that is insane!
When was Social Security ever solvent?
People who are realy disabled for example. Surviving children of parents who deceased too early in life.
Why should SS take care of these folks? First disability could be part of the welfare program which is or should be separate from SS. Secondly surviving children should not be receiving SS. Life Insurance is what should be used to raise those children and the surviving parent should also get a job. A friend of mine lost her husband and has five children. She received a million from the life insurance, his company and a check for like three grand a month from SS. Is that really necessary? Please this is not what it is designed for.
When I retire I will have no debts and a monthly income of about $7000.
Don’t let the government know that. I believe that the people making over 4000 a month from pension and other savings are going to be the first hit whenever they decide to make changes to SS. It is a guess but I believe that I will be close to right.
Bingo
Chile proved privatization would work.
When Bush proposed we try just a little bit of that provenly successful program for just a small portion of social security and with 0.01% of the effort and intensity that he put into illegal alien amnesty, do you remember the uproar engineered by AARP and other professional nanny staters?
The oulined plan would blunt said uproar by initially offering the government employee unions an opportunity to grow.
I've known for a long time that all the money SS confiscated from me would never be returned to me. Whether or not it was intended, this ponzi scheme will wind up as one more way to redistribute the wealth.
Oh yeah. You are so right. It is going to be ugly too. I am glad that most of us realize it on this site, but the liberals are going to go postal. lol.
I’d go for it. If the whole of gub’mint were manned by toothless old goobers like me we’d all benifit. I’d have someone to hector all day and revolution would be a lot easier ‘cause toothless old goobers don’t fight that well.
Well, my first thought was that you truly don’t understand what’s going on behind the scenes. But then you mentioned California and decided you might be on to something there. Even I have troubles with sectors of California! Lol.
Well I must admit your article coincided with a very long and trying day. I must admit I’m happy there is someone bringing Social Security issues to the forefront because it truly is a program that affects every one of us.
One thing I can confirm is that there are a lot overpaid and underpaid people in this country (both private side and in the government). Turnpike operators certainly shouldn’t be making $24/hr in Pennsylvania or anywhere else for that matter.
Hospitals pay their least skilled workers exceptionally well too (one of those hidden reasons our health care costs are so high).
I also happen to agree that senior citizens are an enormously untapped resource. What my agency does would be too complex for someone who wanted to work part time or not be stressed out in their senior years so I’m not sure your plan would work in our operation (but your idea does have merit).
I wonder a bit if there are that many seniors that really want to be working though.
We could just dismantle the entire system and only pay people who have paid in (period). But the SSA is a “social insurance program” so people who are crying “socialism” are spot on. It’s intended to protect our most vulnerable members of society. If families are willing to start caring for their largely impaired seniors or disabled members, then we might get by. The prospect of doing so for the average American is not appealing. Do you really want to care for your indigent mother in law? :-)
Just having a bit of fun here this morning.
I couldn’t agree more. In fact I consider parents responsible for carrying life insurance for at least the first 20 years of a child’s life. It’s really a crying shame that parents don’t at least do that much for their kids. Unfortunately the only way to make life insurance replace Social Security Survivor’s benefits is to require people to purchase life insurance. I’m guessing that would go over like a lead brick for those folks who want the government to shrink.
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.