My Turn: Social Security needs lasting solution
President Bush has often asserted he is “a uniter, not a divider.” Critics have been quick to challenge him on this point, particularly on his decision to go to war in Iraq.
However, the biggest challenge to national unity on domestic policy is likely to come from those who oppose him on Social Security reform. Obviously, President Bush has seized the opportunity to offer his version of reform: partial privatization for younger workers. It remains to be seen whether he has the persuasive power to garner the necessary Congressional and public support to translate his proposals into public policy.
Ironically, much of the resistance to his reform ideas seems to be coming from those who voted for him in 2000 and 2004. Meanwhile, many of those who might benefit from his proposals voted against him in both elections.
In my view, President Bush is off to a shaky start on this issue. Appealing to our emotions with words like “iceberg” may get our attention, but it won’t get our support unless he can convince us his proposals will avoid colliding with the iceberg.
Moving from the debatable assumption there is a Social Security “crisis” to the foregone conclusion that partial privatization for younger workers will resolve it is a mighty big leap in logic. Clearly, there are problems on the horizon with Social Security. The crux of these problems is that the money going out of the system will eventually exceed the money coming in. Economists differ on precisely when that will be. The consensus seems to be around 2022. That deserves our concern, but not our panic.
There are three major causes of the problems with Social Security. First, we have undergone a so-called longevity revolution in. Americans are living longer than ever. A century ago, you were lucky to make it to age 50. Now, you’re likely to reach 80 and beyond.
Second, we’ve experienced a population explosion since World War II. The Baby Boomers, some 80 million strong, born between 1946 and 1964, have strained our society from the cradle to the schools to the workplace. They will begin to collect Social Security retirement benefits in 2008, when, and if, those born in 1946 choose early retirement.
Third, Social Security programs have grown through the years to include coverage beyond the original safety net for the elderly. This, too, has led to a big increase in the number of beneficiaries
The cumulative effect of the longevity revolution, population explosion, and program growth has been to vastly increase both costs and contributions. The ethical question, it seems to me, is: do the the benefits of Social Security to millions of Americans, past, present and future, justify their costs?
As one who has paid into Social Security since 1952, I believe the costs are justified on both economic and ethical grounds. By the way, so do most Americans, according to the surveys I have seen. This being the case, we need to look further for solutions to really reform the system for posterity.
However, legitimate, lasting solutions must address the root causes of Social Security problems. Band-aid fixes, including partial privatization, won’t suffice.
Instead, we need to lay out all available options, to include gradually raising both the regular and early retirement ages, raising contributions from employees and employers, raising the cap on income subject to Social Security contributions, and providing incentives to encourage those who can to continue working and contributing to Social Security.
In a perfect world, we could leave all these discussions and debates to our elected and appointed officials. In the real world, we need to join the dialogue and let them hear us loud and clear, even if we disagree among ourselves.
Thomas B. Vaughn is a Warren County columnist.