Social Security Numbers: Third Rail, First Step?
The more I read about the all-around opposition or reluctance to support the personal accounts that Bush is proposing, the more I'd like to believe Bush is framing social security reform, not the tax cuts, as his domestic policy legacy. It'll take his successor (s) and subsequent congresses, but given the unprecedented expenses ahead for the U.S. and what surely will be our generation's growing interest and influence, social security as we know it is nearing its end.
Today Bush's stand on social security is principled; by 2012 , it's a winner, and the pivotal issue upon which the Democrats must also stand or finally fall as a viable party.
Posts
2 comments:
I'm really curious to see how this debate turns out. I also think that the current political environment will insure that the best solution never sees the light of day. I agree that putting the money in the hands of the people is the right idea, but only if it also comes with Gore's lock-box. Will the feds allow that? Doubt it. I also don't like Bush's liberal "hey, here's a problem, lets throw a bunch of money at it and hope for the best" idea. He needs to find a way to do this without putting the country roughly $2 trillion more in debt. As far as principle, I agree that this is a principled stance by the President. It's just hard to figure what principle he's standing on. Is it a genuine desire to "fix" social security, or is it a desire to "stab the soft underbelly of the welfare state?"
The Bush private accounts are a great idea but they are not a "fix" for social security. Social security will never be fixed until we decide to either reduce the amount of the benefit (good luck when even a reduction in the growth rate is misleadingly described as a "cut") or accept the burden of higher taxes. I am solidly in the "cut the benefit" crowd and welcome the taunts of "you want to kill my grandma".
The reason I support the reduction is that for me - a middle to lower middle class wage earner - social security is meaningless. I never even consider it when I plan my ability to retire. I will have my self positioned to do without it thanks to the many retirement vehicles available to all Americans as we speak. A well-managed Roth IRA coupled with some fiscal restraint is enough to secure anyone's retirement. Which tells me that this enormously expensive program is far from a necessity. Are there people who have planned their lives so poorly that the social security check is all they will have? I'm sure there are, but the current costs of this program are far in excess of what it would take to provide for them...not that it is a given that we have to provide for them.
The private accounts are a reasonable step down the road of doing away with social security altogether. My quality of life will be vastly improved if I'm allowed to invest money well that is now taken from me and not invested at all. We should also reduce the limits on Roth IRAs and 401ks. Americans should be allowed to squirrel away as much as they want and even encouraged to do so. This will vastly reduce the amount of people in the "can't fend for themselves" category at retirement. Then social security can be turned, if people wish, into a much less expensive welfare program for society's victims of poor planning.
Post a Comment