Social Security is really a widely encompassing description for a variety of government assistance programs including Medicare, Medicaid, disability benefits and retirement programs, to name the most common. Social Security programs, specifically the retirement program, have long been considered a perilous “third rail” for politicians, meaning that if you tamper with the existing program you will get stung badly, and if you attempt to reform the existing program you may well die, politically that is. As a result, the retirement element of social security has been on virtual cruise control, occasionally modified to accommodate changing dollar values, but on the whole remaining in its original form. Recently, this element of Social Security has been brought under the full glare of the spotlight as the current President has made this one of his “hills to die on.” Everyone has finally admitted that the current system can’t sustain itself in its current form indefinitely, and though predictions of its insolvency vary, they come to the same conclusion: something must be done.
It would seem to me though, that before we try to fix what will soon be broken, we should make use of this opportunity to reexamine not just the structure of our program, but our underlying reasons for having the program at all. What purpose does social security play in our society, beyond redistributing money from the working class to the retired class with the promise that today’s working class will be replaced by a future working class that will fund their retirement? Or does it represent some other values we hold? An honest answer to these questions should be essential in order to shape lasting reform, for each may necessitate completely different plans. And lasting reform should be the key, so whatever plan arises should remain flexible enough to accommodate changing future demographics and attitudes towards national retirement programs.
Why do we even have a social security retirement system? The original reason for creating a national retirement program was simple- that generation of Americans decided that no citizen should have to continue to labor day after day to make ends meet after reaching a certain age. And further, that no citizen who had spent their productive adult years working as a member of society should have to worry about starvation or poverty once they became too old to work. The former is a tribute to our elders, a thank you for years of service and a chance to enjoy ones later years free from the daily grind of making ends meet. The latter is a security blanket for ourselves, ensuring that even if things go bad, we will always have something to fall back on. At the programs inception, many millions had lost their life savings, their jobs, their homes, or all three in the Great Depression. A nation that had enjoyed decades of progression towards a modern society was suddenly plunged backwards leaving whole areas in abject poverty. At that time, families and neighbors had to depend upon each other for survival, sharing the resources they could get, passing along clothes and furniture and the like, and dividing up the bread so that everyone got at least a little bit each time. Social Security became an extension of this attitude where everyone helped everyone else just a little bit so that no person went without at least the basics of life.
So if Social Security was designed to keep those at the bottom from falling through the cracks, how did it become the massive behemoth of entitlement that it is today? Was social security ever meant to be an unqualified payout, a reward for reaching the finish line in one piece? To the generation now coming into retirement age, the largest retiring generation in history no less, Social Security was sold just that way- as a reward for reaching the finish line. And to that end, it has been left to flounder about. After all, government promised them it would be there, so why worry about it? Somebody should have been worrying though.
Originally, the number of able workers paying into the system (once it was established) outnumbered those drawing out by something like 15 to 1. Such a ratio was more than adequate to fund retirements and build future payout reserves. As a result, Social Security was widely touted by those of the middle and lower economic classes as a future nest egg that no one could take away, something unknown to previous generations of workers. Then, society was still largely agrarian with more children per family, so who could have foreseen the trend towards urban living and smaller and smaller families, resulting in a shrinking worker/retiree ratio? Even as the situation became more apparent, the focus of social security remained entrenched in the attitude that those monthly checks were a right of birth and any kind of reform was framed from that point of view.
So at this moment of change, we need to ask ourselves just what do we want social security to be about? Do we want a system that promises everyone a guaranteed payout by age 65? Do we want a need-based system that just supports those who don’t make enough money to quit working at age 65? Do we want both? Ironically, the answer to how someone views social security can be found in the name they use to describe it. The words “social security” imply a kind of safety net, something to keep someone from hitting rock bottom. Increasingly, the current debate is being described in terms of “retirement accounts,” which imply a guaranteed pension of sorts, regardless of ones financial situation. Perhaps we are actually talking about two separate issues that have been rolled up into one.
Personally, I have no problems with a national guaranteed retirement program, provided it was equitably applied and designed to account for disparate earning potential. Designed properly, such a program could cover everyone and would alleviate an individuals concern about generating enormous hordes of cash in order to survive ones golden years. Such financial freedom could allow more people the opportunity to fulfill career paths that typically offer less financially but may be more personally rewarding. It would offer people the chance to switch careers throughout their lives without worrying about losing their retirement savings. It could be flexible enough to allow people to increase its potential themselves while strong enough to provide real security in later years without additional personal contributions.
At the same time, we must recognize that social security is a term for helping people through tough times, but not necessarily a means of long-term support. Social security should more accurately describe our efforts to eliminate poverty and hunger and homelessness among our working class and families. Describing this debate in terms of “social security” only clouds the matter at hand. It is a debate about funding our retirement, about who should pay the bill, and about who reaps the rewards of a lifetime of hard work.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 3rd, 2005 at 7:21 am and is filed under Common Sense, Government, Life, Politics, Reform, Social Programs, taxes.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 3rd, 2005 at 4:19 pm
Another thought provoker Ken. Nice job. I particularly enjoyed your comments regarding the respecting of elders and thanking them for working so hard for so long. This a long lost value in our Reagan Era Driven Me Generation.
What really bugs me is when the government dips into the till to pay for other things using the funds from the SS program.
In a blink of an eye, the program could end up dead on the vine, the victim of the false assumptions that the rich elite (Congress, W, Rove and Co. etc…)make as they make decisions about whether or not it is needed.
The already wealthy individual doesn’t need social security…which is why they are pushing the gamblers approach – privitization and the use of your dollars to invest in business. Just ask folks who invested in Webvan (or any of the other failed businesses) if their investment dollars are still there.
Simply becuase one invests money in privite equity stocks does not mean it will grow.
May 3rd, 2005 at 5:19 pm
I like your thoughts on this. Social Security, to some extent, has helped America into an era of laziness. I, for one, am not counting on one single cent from the government. I choose instead to take responsibility for myself and my family, and save on my own. So some of it is taxed, and sure, the money I currently pay into Social Security I may never see, but allow me to save on my own terms (Personal Savings Account) and I’ll be beyond happy. America needs to take collective responsibility instead of relying upon the government to do it for us.
May 4th, 2005 at 12:49 am
Social Security is not a right of passage and those who have not placed money into it do not get any unless someone in their family did put into it. It is not something the government is giving us, it is something that has been a forced tax and that would be one major difficulty of changing it where there isn’t a gurantee of improvement. It would be like saying you were an investment fund that signed a contract with me to pay you a 100.00 dollars a year and after 10 years I will pay you 11,000 dollars. Well it’s 9 and half years now and you say sorry the money is not there! Where do you think this would go? If something major happens to Social Security in the future, I think this would be worse then when the banks closed during the depression. This would be a sign of the USA government itself collapsing not only the economy.
It sure is a thin iced pond to be skating when some one decides to make changes to this program with out being able to prove it near 100 percent sure.
May 4th, 2005 at 3:39 am
This is a good blog in the tradition of Thomas Paine.
May 4th, 2005 at 6:57 am
I like your way of thinking, and your layout. Would I be correct in assuming that your blog title was derived from Thomas Payne’s Common Sense? I’ll come back to leave my thought on SS; I am sleepy now and must retire. You should read my sister’s blog Latent-Truths. I think you would like it a lot.
May 4th, 2005 at 11:30 pm
I live in Canada and our country has a stronger “buy in” with social programs. We have our pension plan as the USA does but we also have socialized medicine. I think that a society will be judged by how it treats its most disadvantaged citizens. At the same time, we need to ensure that limited public funds are used wisely. I believe in universal benefits so long as it is attached to a taxation system that takes it back from those who don’t need public funds.
May 5th, 2005 at 2:27 am
This is an extremely thoughtful and articulate entry. I think it is also rather valuable to consider the bigger picture and utilize this SS “crisis” as an opportunity to define who were are and what we as a nation value… most notably in terms of our work ethic, our attitudes toward aging and the elderly among other issues.
What frightens me though is the possibility (probability?) that none of the kind of true reflection that needs to happen will. Ours is too often a culture looking for the “quick-fix” prescription…we tend not to see the forest through the trees.
Not to mention that I don’t quite buy that George W. himself even knows what the hell he is trying to present in terms of this renovative approach to SS.
Great stuff here. I am glad I stumbled into your blog.
~Rosemarie
May 5th, 2005 at 5:23 am
Windspike said: – quote – What really bugs me is when the government dips into the till to pay for other things using the funds from the SS program. – end quote –
The main problem with this program has been from the beginning. The U.S. Government has been using it to fund everything from dams & roads to parks & schools. It all goes into the general fund and the politicians spend it in their districts to shore up votes for the next time they run. The SS lock box is filled with IOU’s. The money does not belong to the politicians. It was paid, in good faith, by the taxpayer to our government with a promise to return the funds after retirement age is reached.
Your article did not mention (in so many words) that if death is reached before retirement the government keeps the money.
Which brings us to the real question. WHOSE MONEY IS IT?
I’m going to go out on a limb and claim that it is the money of the person who earned it. It is not the money of the group that made up the confusing tax laws.
I’m now 54 (55 in October) – If they pass the changes I’ll be able to take a portion of my SS money and put it in MY account IF I OPT IN! I see it as a choice. Democrat politicians have been big on ‘choice’ for generations and I ask why is it they now balk? Is it that they feel they might lose a big chunk of change they now get to spend willy nilly? –
Call your senators and congressmen and ask them to do one of the following. Accept President Bush’s plan, come up with a better plan, or quit their job. Doing nothing will kill this country and our children will pay for it.
May 5th, 2005 at 5:31 am
(responses)
Windspike- Any system that would have a possibility of opacity would require that government be strictly separated from withdrawing the funds. Lack of such a provision leads to the very problem we have today.
And while the wealthy may not need the retirement funds, we must find a way to make the system attentive to them as well, since they also pay taxes.
Todd- Social Security is one of many number of things that have changed from their original intent of helping just those who need it to helping everyone. And I don’t have a problem so much with that, as long as the structure of such a program does not preclude productivity or encourage what you call laziness.
I think that it is good for individuals to save, but we aren’t teaching that these days. And for many, the incoming money barely matches the outgoing money, making saving difficult indeed.
Also, collective responsibility is the government, but in the current atmosphere, the politicians and citizens alike seem to have forgotten this. I’m sure you meant individual responsibility, but in truth what we need is a more balanced blend of the two. Thanks for the comment.
Blogcruiser- You are right about the “you have to put in to get out” concept. And yes, it is a “forced tax.” What I was trying to imply is the notion that we take for granted that our retirement will be covered by social security, when in fact, social security retirement was meant to be used by those with the most need. It quickly morphed into a all-for-one retirement program, which is fine I guess, if only it were treated as such by its managers, the government.
Besides, any changes to a national retirement program would have to fulfill its prior commitment to those on the old system to the best of its ability, while those receiving benefits from the old program would have to be willing to accept some changes for the benefit of future generations. Sometimes, we have to give a little to right a course. Thanks for coming back.
C_Neil & Miss Krys- Thanks. Yes, you picked the Thomas Paine right off the page there. A good read, as well as his other works. Hope to hear from you again.
Tapris- Thanks for popping in with another perspective. I can’t say that I know much about the Canadian system, but I can say that I agree that tax dollars should always be used with the greatest efficiency, otherwise, why have a government do the job? Pop on by again sometime.
Rosemarie- Since we can all agree that we do have some time before disaster strikes, it only makes sense to ask a few questions and redefine a system that is more honest, opaque, and fair. The quick fix is rarely the best one, as you often have to fix the fix, ad naseum.
As for GW…he’s still trying to spell privitization on his chalkboard.
Stumble back anytime.
May 5th, 2005 at 5:39 am
(response)
prying1- you caught me mid reply or I’d have gotten to you in the last batch.
You make some good points, and I think we can all agree that the raiding of the funds has been treacherous of both parties. It only proves that they have not the public concern at heart, but rather special, targeted goals that may not always be the will of the people.
And while for much of the programs lifespan the money paid was done so in good faith, it is hard to argue that today’s younger workers are paying into a system that they can trust to be there for them. In that sense, the money they are paying in will never be theirs, nor will there be much left for them when they retire. Today’s workers do not have any such guarantee from the government, and as such need to reconfigure the program as necessary.
In the end, if you consider the program to be in the vein of a national retirement pension program, then all money deposited belongs to the depositor. But if it is just a social safety net type of program, to be used by those with the most need, then they taxes collected become part of the public trust, not claimable by any one person specifically, but claimable by all in need.
In my next post, I’ll begin to explore some ways of forming a system for future workers and also look to ways to shore up the existing system to fulfill its obligations to those already entrapped in its morass.
Thanks for the point of view!
May 5th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
When I surf to your page using Blog Explosion, your AdSense words are all Surfing and Surfer related.
Explanation and fix here:
http://rockymoore.com/archive/2005/03/27/257.aspx
Enjoy!
Douglas
PS No need to post this as a comment; I just couldn’t find an email to you direct.
May 5th, 2005 at 8:48 pm
James Glassman at TechCentralStation wrote a great article on the Social Security debate here. And, at risk of being deemed a shameless self-promoter, here are my thoughts.
May 6th, 2005 at 2:02 am
Just checking sites today. i always like yours.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic
May 6th, 2005 at 6:21 am
(responses)
Douglas- thanks for the tip. I chose to change the settings in AdSense. hopefully that will do the trick. If not, I’ll take suggestion #2 and add the code. Come by again sometime.
Porky- I’ve check out both articles you’ve presented, and I just don’t agree with the basic concept that we are all in it for ourselves. My next post will more clearly define my position regarding the necessity of a national retirement program, and that will be followed by actual proposals. Although I’m sure you’ll disagree with them, I’d still encourage you to give them some thought. Thanks for dropping by.
David- Good to have you back.
May 6th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
spillerty
October 1st, 2005 at 10:03 pm
I have been to your site and I too am working very hard at adsense blog to increase my revenue. I am also looking into many NEW ways to utilize the design to further direct people to follow my ads.
adsense blog
October 2nd, 2005 at 3:57 am
You have a nice blog here! I will be sure to book mark you.
I have a email in lead lead leads.com mlm opt responsive site. It pretty much covers email in lead lead leads.com mlm opt responsive related stuff. Check it out if you get time
October 5th, 2005 at 2:22 am
Hi i am totally blown away with the blogs people have created its so much fun to read alot of good info and you have also one of the best blogs !! Have some time check my link to !!base business home online opportunity
October 5th, 2005 at 9:12 am
You have a very good site on based best business home This is something I also have a large interest in and have set up a blog about based best business home please visit and let me know what you think.