While the intent of Social Security has been honorable since its inception, I am quite skeptical about whether government can - and should - continue to provide this program.
Back in the 1930s, the intention of Social Security was to keep the elderly, mostly widows, from living and dying homeless in the streets. With significant improvements since then in health care, Americans are living longer. It can no longer be a stop gap to sustain people; seniors are living decades beyond retirement.
I personally agree with former Treasury Secretary O'Neil's proposal: a birthright payment to each U.S. citizen at birth escrowed for their later life, inheritable by heirs should the individual not survive to receive it. I realize that this comes with two problems: one, illegals will flock to the U.S. to give birth in order to be eligible; two, this program will be beneficial for younger beneficiaries but not those older now.
The fact that it would be beneficial to the young is precisely why it should be done. A 50 year plan to transition from the current program to the new would help with the phase out. If we try to keep the current system it will be bankrupt eventually, despite the revisions to the plan resulting from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. A gain in 12 years of solvency is merely a deference without real reform.
I am 52 years old and do not expect to benefit from Social Security. My parents' generation is nearly bankrupting the program. My great-grandmother lived to be 94, which was unusual for her generation. Now it is the norm for seniors to live into the 80s.
Obama's assertion that seniors should have the right to retire "with dignity" pulls at the public's emotions but does not erase the potential that government will raid the trust. It might be evident, but I do not trust government to optimally manager programs. As soon as there is an emergency somewhere else, they justify taking your money.
It is costing more and more, with fewer and fewer contributing workers, to sustain benefits currently. And that is without the first wave of Baby Boomers, the largest generation yet, starting to reach retirement age in 2011.
We have got to shift our focus from pouring money down a well to responsibly utilizing the money for the program. Raising taxes for businesses and private workers will not resolve it. Government cannot solve problems by taxing people to their eyeballs.
I will be very surprised if the program survives to reach its centennial.
The idea of the birth right payment until age 18 could have consequences. If the money is passed on to family members upon the persons death, would that create more money for another family member to spend toward their health. This would create an uneven system. The system we currently have keeps the level of service equal. No one has better care than the other under social security today. Also the cost of health care is not being addressed by these payment programs. The costs are some of the main reasons that the system is continuing on a down fall.
ReplyDeleteThe payment would not be for health care but for retirement funds. Thus, if someone did not survive to receive it, their heirs would. There could be not guarantee of "equity" unless all were guaranteed to live to the age at which it was conferred.
ReplyDeleteI also liked the idea of contributing the $2000 upon birth but hadn't thought about people the illegals coming here to give birth. That was a very good point. Maybe they could provide the money with some type of stipulation that you must have lived in America for a certain amount of years to help avoid that. I am 48 and also don't expect there to be anything for us when it is time for our retirement.
ReplyDeleteYour suggestion is valid: make some sort of citizenship stipulation that precludes people from rushing to the U.S. when pregnant!
ReplyDeleteAn interesting alternative to Social Security as it is currently administered, that may make it a more viable system, that will be able to provide for those in need is to only give it to those in need as "Means-Tested Assistance Payments". People that are not in need that currently receive SS benefits will not be a drain on the system so maybe the tax could be lowered as well?
ReplyDelete