I think the president has the same problem with social security that he has with Iraq - no exit strategy-U.S. Rep. Nick Jo Rahall II
It's so convenient to play to the heartstrings of war protestors across the country that I'd imagine it's almost impossible for some politicians to resist. Rahall's assessment of the Social Security "crisis" clearly indicates that without said heartstrings, he would have nothing more than his own name to say about Social Security. The nature of the threat facing our Social Security system is purely mathematical. It's imminently clear that we cannot sustain the payout as technology increases quality of living and life expectancy in the United States (along with the rest of the world). The Baby Boomers are a prominent example of a major population "push", which many statisticians and economists question the current system's ability to overcome, but whether the terminal point is immediately present or several years off seems of little consequence. I present you some statistics published by the Social Security Administration to consider. It's important to realize that Rahall's argument is that the danger isn't immediate. Change the years in the following statistics.... Add 10 to them if you want. How about 50? (Word of caution: we aren't going to make it 50 years with what we've got.... add it anyway if you want)
€ In 1950, there were 16 workers to support every one beneficiary of Social Security.
€ Today, there are only 3.3 workers supporting every Social Security beneficiary.
€ In 2008, baby boomers are expected to retire, beginning a span of ever-increasing retirees. According to the website, "By the time today's youngest workers turn 65, there will only be two workers supporting each beneficiary."
€ In 2018, the president said the government will begin to pay out more in Social Security benefits than it collects in payroll taxes, creating mounting program deficits.
Privatizing Social Security implies that the money that you pay into the system comes out only for you. It creates a one-to-one ratio coverage, independent and necessarily insensitive to population change of any degree. The argument about the risk of private investment applies only in the transition period, and it is the prominent argument used to scare old people into avoiding any kind of change to the current SS system, which, as I thought we'd already established, is unsustainable. If you've ever studied Computer Science (along with numerous other engineering-related fields), I'm sure you could confirm that when trying to apply a solution to a problem, you want to fix it for all cases, not patch the bugs that you see today only to run into more next week. The one-to-one ratio payout ensures that your money will be there when you need it, no matter how many of you their are. Any questions?
Oh, and here's my favorite part. Rahall, asked to offer alternatives to President Bush's suggested solution, said that House Democrats feel "alternatives should not be put on the table until privatization is taken off the table."
Pshhhhwhat!?!?!?!?!? Damnit, Nick Jo, I want answers. If nobody puts any more suggestions on the table until we take ours off, I'm going to be one pissed off senior citizen before anything gets fixed.
No comments:
Post a Comment