The idea that SS commits future generations to policy choices made today is simply false. Because SS is a transfer program, the transfers must be made in real time. Voters can always decide to stop funding SS. But they probably won't because the moral claim of the elderly is too compelling. The anti-SS forces (who include financial firms wanting to manage the accounts and parts of corporate America wanting to stop paying payroll taxes) must therefore deceive voters by claiming that SS is broke, or "unsustainable as currently structured" or "won't be there for younger workers." In a straight up or down vote on whether the public should secure the well-being of the elderly, I have no doubt SS would win, again and again. Ellen
David Shemano wrote: I would suggest that this is problematic, because while it would be democratic for current workers to agree to tax themselves to transfer assets to the currently retired, it is anti-democratic to bind future generations to tax themselves to transfer funds to the current workers when the current workers retire. Among other things, current workers (and current retirees) have no incentive to take into consideration the effect of present decisions on future generations. SS payments (and similar transfers like Medicare) continue to incease as a percentage of the budget each year, which means the budget options for future generations will be severely restricted.
