Social Insecurity
Well, the President has submitted a budget to the Congress, as well as made a radical proposal to revamp Social Security. And just how do I feel about it? Absent any of the salient details, surprisingly not too damn bad. I am not saying that I agree with the President or his party on one single thing, but at least the "third rail" of American politics has been brought out into the open, and the notion of reducing the size of government has been made concrete. I see this as a fantastic opportunity to open a discussion of the issues. I also recognize that this is a great opportunity for the party out of power to stake out a position on these issues and differentiate themselves both from the party in power and from the image of whiny-assed crybabies that they currently present to the voting public.
First, Social Security. There is no such thing as a "Trust Fund" for this program. All there is a promise of the federal government to dig up the money somehow, either through higher taxes or through the dilution of the money supply, in the form of deficits and even more borrowing.
It is easy to fall into the trap of being a victim, (I do it all the time); I am one of the heavily affected class, just under the threshold of "we won't take your benefits", and too old to really make things back up in some meaningful way). That my potential benefits are shot to hell is a given here. Get used
to it. The mindset of being the victim of a major hosing, (though it is true), will not serve anyones interest. What we need is a presentation of the facts, with projections through the next century of each of the potential courses of action. The party now out of power could really make some political hay by
stepping up and being truthful with the public. It is probably too
much to expect them to take a leading role in forming a consensus then pushing it in a legislative agenda, but those actions, if actually taken, would be seen as great strides towards respectability, not to mention political viability. A new chairman of the DNC will be chosen in the next week. People, are
you listening? For anyone reading this, (either of you), take the
time to pen or word-process a letter to your legislators, senators, and yes, even to the wannabe's on the political radar screen. How this debate shapes up will shape the future of the nation.
Many questions remain unanswered, (yea, even unasked). If, as the President has outlined,
a worker is allowed to divert a percentage of his/her payroll taxes into a private investment, I would ask first if it will be insured by anyone, (in the style of the FDIC)? What happens to the taxes that the employer pays for each worker? Is a comparable percentage diverted into the same private account, and if so, does the employer have a say in how it is invested? Is the employers share of the tax reduced by the percentage that the worker does not put "into the system", (representing a significant windfall for employers)? And finally, what is the envisioned role of the employer contribution? Is it to stay, or eventually go away?
Next, we have the issue of the size of government. What we have seen this week, (at least from what we have seen in the papers and on TV), is a proposal to reduce the size, (what I mean is the cost, the level of expenditures, of the federal government), in a substantial way. I do not agree with the substance, in that once again, the cut's seem to target the individual and spare the business community, (underscoring once again that business is the primary constituent of government, and that the
individual is, essentially, expendable). I do not like or agree with these initiatives, but once again, in the information age, we need to see the financial structure of the federal government laid bare before us, in order to evaluate what we want and the future role of government in our lives. DNC, are you listening?
Similarly, there are many questions that remain. As the budget deficit shrinks, (assuming that it will do so with all of the "off-budget" expenses looming large on the horizon), who will benefit? The reason that social programs exist at all is that government is, by definition and by its nature, unfair, in that it
does not treat every individual equally. Some of these inequalities are by design, to help meet the needs of those persons who have been dealt a lesser hand in life than most. One would be hard pressed to find a politician who is anxious to relegate those persons to the scrap heap of a Dickensian society. Other inequalities exist because it is the judgment of the polity, in the form of its elected government, that some measures are necessary and justifiable to facilitate economic and social progress. These measures burden some more than others, and many of the social welfare programs that exist are specifically to address those burdens. One might not have
to look too far to find someone willing to rationalize the elimination of such "handouts". These are probably the same people who see a lifetime on death row as a vacation paid for at taxpayer expense. Finally, there are programs that are intended to be investments in the future. Those that benefit the children who now live in poverty, and those that make basic medical care and educational opportunity as ubiquitous as cell phone service come to mind. These are a bit outside the pale of the
obligations of government, but in paying a little now, we save a bundle later, as well as adding fuel to our economic engine.
There. I feel better now, having enlightened the world just a teeny bit.
First, Social Security. There is no such thing as a "Trust Fund" for this program. All there is a promise of the federal government to dig up the money somehow, either through higher taxes or through the dilution of the money supply, in the form of deficits and even more borrowing.
It is easy to fall into the trap of being a victim, (I do it all the time); I am one of the heavily affected class, just under the threshold of "we won't take your benefits", and too old to really make things back up in some meaningful way). That my potential benefits are shot to hell is a given here. Get used
to it. The mindset of being the victim of a major hosing, (though it is true), will not serve anyones interest. What we need is a presentation of the facts, with projections through the next century of each of the potential courses of action. The party now out of power could really make some political hay by
stepping up and being truthful with the public. It is probably too
much to expect them to take a leading role in forming a consensus then pushing it in a legislative agenda, but those actions, if actually taken, would be seen as great strides towards respectability, not to mention political viability. A new chairman of the DNC will be chosen in the next week. People, are
you listening? For anyone reading this, (either of you), take the
time to pen or word-process a letter to your legislators, senators, and yes, even to the wannabe's on the political radar screen. How this debate shapes up will shape the future of the nation.
Many questions remain unanswered, (yea, even unasked). If, as the President has outlined,
a worker is allowed to divert a percentage of his/her payroll taxes into a private investment, I would ask first if it will be insured by anyone, (in the style of the FDIC)? What happens to the taxes that the employer pays for each worker? Is a comparable percentage diverted into the same private account, and if so, does the employer have a say in how it is invested? Is the employers share of the tax reduced by the percentage that the worker does not put "into the system", (representing a significant windfall for employers)? And finally, what is the envisioned role of the employer contribution? Is it to stay, or eventually go away?
Next, we have the issue of the size of government. What we have seen this week, (at least from what we have seen in the papers and on TV), is a proposal to reduce the size, (what I mean is the cost, the level of expenditures, of the federal government), in a substantial way. I do not agree with the substance, in that once again, the cut's seem to target the individual and spare the business community, (underscoring once again that business is the primary constituent of government, and that the
individual is, essentially, expendable). I do not like or agree with these initiatives, but once again, in the information age, we need to see the financial structure of the federal government laid bare before us, in order to evaluate what we want and the future role of government in our lives. DNC, are you listening?
Similarly, there are many questions that remain. As the budget deficit shrinks, (assuming that it will do so with all of the "off-budget" expenses looming large on the horizon), who will benefit? The reason that social programs exist at all is that government is, by definition and by its nature, unfair, in that it
does not treat every individual equally. Some of these inequalities are by design, to help meet the needs of those persons who have been dealt a lesser hand in life than most. One would be hard pressed to find a politician who is anxious to relegate those persons to the scrap heap of a Dickensian society. Other inequalities exist because it is the judgment of the polity, in the form of its elected government, that some measures are necessary and justifiable to facilitate economic and social progress. These measures burden some more than others, and many of the social welfare programs that exist are specifically to address those burdens. One might not have
to look too far to find someone willing to rationalize the elimination of such "handouts". These are probably the same people who see a lifetime on death row as a vacation paid for at taxpayer expense. Finally, there are programs that are intended to be investments in the future. Those that benefit the children who now live in poverty, and those that make basic medical care and educational opportunity as ubiquitous as cell phone service come to mind. These are a bit outside the pale of the
obligations of government, but in paying a little now, we save a bundle later, as well as adding fuel to our economic engine.
There. I feel better now, having enlightened the world just a teeny bit.
posted by eccentric recluse at 5:33 PM
0 comments
