social insecurity
I've noted some misleading tactics being employed by proponents of partially-privatized Social Security:1.) Proponents of privatization argue that opponents to the president's Social Security reform are suggesting that the current system will not become insolvent at some point in the next thirty to seventy years.
From what I've heard, this isn't what opponents are sugggesting at all when they point to the success of Social Security, calling to mind the cliche "if it aint broke, don't fix it" mantra. What opponents to privatizing Social Security are saying is that Social Security does not need such a rash, structural overhaul in order to accomodate the baby-boomer generation, it simply needs modifications to such things as the 7% cap on income earners of $200,000(?) or more per year. Social Security can not remain a regressive tax if the current age of retirement and benefits are to remain constant.
2.) Proponents of privatization base much of their argument off of the notion that "it is your money, you deserve to spend it as you see fit."
Even a freshmen college student who has taken one introductory course in American politics realizes that Social Security is not a pension program and was never intended to be. The taxpayer is not supposed to receive the amount of money that he has put into his account over his lifetime; but, upon his/her retirement, the retiree's Social Security check comes from the Social Security payed out by current workers. Social Security is not a savings account, it is a program to aid, NOT SUSTAIN, retirees. Privatization would not necessarily lead to a take-out what you pay-in scenario (without a tremendous jump in the economy which, should it occur, would last how many decades/generations before declining naturally?), so even if you don't like the idea of not getting out what you put in, this is no justification too support privatization.
The entire argument around Social Security revolves around the wealthiest in America and whether they should pay in more to the system than the amount they get out (just as most Americans do). I recognize that this is not "fair," but government has never been about fairness, but justice. What is just for American society at this juncture? I can't rationalize the American people accomodating the wealthiest (who are going to be able to afford the help to invest their privatized accounts most wisely and get the most out of privatization) members of society by risking retirement security in a system directly dependent upon the well being of the economy (an inherently unstable beast). Wasn't Social Security a necessity in the first place because of what resulted from the stock market crashing? Seriously, the irony is killing me.
The problem of Social Security goes much deeper than people relying too heavily upon their monthly check, rather than independently saving up sufficeintly for their retirment. High drug costs and the lack of affordable health care strain the Social Security system, and once we solve these problems, dependence upon Social Security may lessen. I'm not saying anyone's got the answers (though I think some are closer than others), I'm just sugggesting some possible problems.
But seriously, whose got time for shit like that when there are so many wars to fight? Iran by August?
posted by Michael D. @ 23:18
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home