Erik Reuter wrote:
I would have thought it was pretty clear. What part of spending more and more do you have trouble understanding? How high a percentage of GDP does SS spending have to get before it can stabilize? 70 years of increases is apparently not enough for you.
As Social Security became accepted in this country, its reach was expanded to benefit people in more situations than simply retirees, which has required increases in the payroll tax. The benefits this expansion has provided to children, the disabled and others who cannot fend for themselves, including many minorities who make up a disproportionate number of the needy, are a fine example of our national values of compassion and resposibility to the neediest. For example, in the last 50 years, we have reduced poverty among the elderly dramatically. We have walked the line between a social safety net and personal responsibility. We remain a long way from socialism and unlike many other welfare systems, Social Security abuses are rare -- how often do we hear of an abuser getting rich from it? Far more often we hear that its cost of living adjustments are inadequate, of beneficiaries barely getting by -- better off, but not spoiled, by any measure.
It only right that Social Security benefits as many of the needy in our society as possible -- it is our money, after all. I'm pleased to live where people consider it a national, public priority to care for those who cannot fully support themselves. How we treat our retired and disabled is a measure of our decency, perhaps the greatest such measure. Any movement of this responsibilty into the private sector seems like a step back toward the brutal times when the only social security for needy children, the disabled and elderly was unreliable charity. Biblical tithing existed because there was no such system in place; the real long-term historical trend should be based on that figure -- a minimum of 10 percent of our incomes.
It seems to me that the most important change that needs to be made to Social Security is to insulate it as much as we can from politics. Create enormous legal and political obstacles to spending its funding on anything else. Of course, such a hands-off policy demands that it be structured in a manner that makes it viable long-term.
Lest anyone be confused, Social Security's net assets have *increased* every year since 1982 and the longer-term trend certainly has been so (see http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html). This doesn't mean we can close our eyes to the future population shifts, but it does mean that any hint that there is a present-day crisis, rather than a far future one, surely must be regarded as politically, not financially motivated. In the cliche of good journalism, "Follow the money."
Nick
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
