REFORM SOCIAL SECURITY NOW, OR PAY THE PRICE IN 20 YEARS!

From a Subscription Only online journal - President George Bush on Social Security:

In an address the President foresaw the need to move beyond the pay-as-you-go financing of the current Social Security system. "For perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions," the president allowed. But after that, he explained, it would be necessary to move to what he called "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." In other words, his call for the establishment of Social Security directly called for today's reform agenda: "It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans," the President explained.

I know, I know, we won't run out of funds for 37 years, and we will only have to cut back 30% even then. Riiiight! I know, I know, I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth already, I can hear the wailing from many on the left (and a few on the right). However, folks, the fact of the matter, no matter who is saying it, no matter what your political persuasion is that SS is a ponzi scheme. I hear many saying "the money is in the trust fund" to which I respond, "NO! It is not." The "trust fund" consists of government IOUs in which the current taxpayer promises to pay for this years recipients, hoping they will still be able to collect from taxpayers in future years. Why do you think pyramid schemes are illegal? Because someone, somewhere at the bottom of the links gets the shaft while someone else gets the gold.

In the late 90's Both President Clinton and Vice President Gore talked about the looming problem with Social Security. Gore even campaigned on the absolute need for a "lock-box" to guard Social Security [aren't you getting tired of Typing out Social Security, why not just type SS?~ ed. Hey, not a bad idea. SS it is]from the trepidations of those who would "drain" the system, and the vast majority of the Democratic Party supported their stance. Well, nothing regarding SS has changed since then, so why are the Democrats resisting now? Why are they saying there is nothing wrong with SS? You don't suppose it would be politics as usual do you?

In the 1964 presidential race, Barry Goldwater campaigned on the need to reform SS before it went bankrupt. The Democrats despicable response was a commercial featuring a pair of hand tearing up a social security card. [hey, you just dated yourself!~ed. I know, I know, I'm older than dirt] Later, when it became apparent that there really was a problem with SS, congress took the brave stance of taking the thing "off budget" so that the IOU's to the "trust fund" won't be apparent. Like hell it was brave, it was solely and specifically designed to fool the public so congress and the president wouldn't have to deal with the "third rail of politics" after all, folk 60 years old and older vote and they vote to protect their SS checks above all else.

There in lies the problem, as P.J. O'Rourke noted:

"Social Security is a government program with a constituency made up of the old, the near old and those who hope or fear to grow old. After 215 years of trying, we have finally discovered a special interest that includes 100 percent of the population. Now we can vote ourselves rich."

I don't know, honestly, if the solution proposed by President Bush is a workable solution or not. I do know that if we do nothing, if we don't take the problem seriously, if we continue to hide our heads in the sand then the outlay by the government with regards to SS and/or Medicare our children, grand children and great grand children will pay a price they cannot possibly pay. And that, my friends may be the lever that tips democracy over and destroys it.

Now, I have a confession to make. The entry quote was not by George W. Bush it was by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and here is the whole thing:

"In an address to Congress on January 17, 1935, President Roosevelt foresaw the need to move beyond the pay-as-you-go financing of the current Social Security system. "For perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions," the president allowed. But after that, he explained, it would be necessary to move to what he called "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." In other words, his call for the establishment of Social Security directly anticipated today's reform agenda: "It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans," FDR explained.

"What Roosevelt was talking about is the need to update Social Security sometime around 1965 with what today we would call personal accounts," says one top GOP member of the Ways and Means Committee. "By my reckoning we are only about 40 years late in addressing his concerns on how [to] make Social Security solvent."