Social (In)Security

It was not so long ago when President Bush decided to spend some of his “political capital” getting the Congress to engage in a conversation with him about how to shore up Social Security. Today, however, there are upwardly spiraling fuel prices putting the squeeze on transportation, there is a home mortgage crisis about which government leaders are debating to what extent – if any – the government should provide assistance, there is a continuing loss of jobs, and there is a severe credit crunch in this country which essentially means that it is not only the government living on borrowed money. And lest we forget, there is still a war on, a war that will not go away any time soon no matter how much we may wish it so.

When President Bush approached Social Security shortly after his reelection, the nation was told that the System would be flat broke in 40 years. In trying to head off this impending crisis, Mr. Bush made some pretty radical proposals including privatizing a certain portion of Social Security. The devil is in those details, of course, but it is not a point of matter in what I think this government and, indeed, this nation is going to have to do to take Social Security more seriously.

Of course every politician up for reelection will thump his or her chest and tell the nation’s elderly that they need not worry about “their” Social Security, “not while there is still breath in my lungs!”, they say. The promises are sure and true that “no matter what, YOUR Social Security will be safe.” What they don’t say is that in order to fund the sort of shortfalls predicted, there will have to be a massive increase in payroll tax withholding. There was a lot of wind blown, but not much else got done until the midterm elections started to roll around and then the discussion just sort of faded away.

Regardless of how one feels about the proposals President Bush put forth, the fact remains that the funding shortfall issue of Social Security is still hanging over our heads. Now our economy is headed toward recession (depending, of course, upon whom one is speaking to), and everyone with a financial problem is virtually standing on the steps of the Congress with his hand out demanding a government bail-out. And with elections just around the corner, it is a near certain bet that there will be some sort of consumer and/or corporate bail-out beyond the coming rebates in an effort to at least give the illusion that government is “doing something”. And there is still no discussion about how to shore up Social Security.

Where is it written that one is entitled to quit one’s job at the age of 65 and expect the government to subsidize the retirement? Please understand that I am not addressing those who are forced to retire due to ill health; I believe that this alone was the intent of the original Social Security proposal – to keep the elderly who were no longer able to work from starving to death. Today the Social Security Administration sends out periodic statements detailing how long we’ve been working and paying into the system, how much we’ve paid in, and how much we can expect to draw upon reaching that magical moment called “retirement”. In this, the government itself has helped to contribute to the misguided notion that Social Security is some sort of personal “savings account” containing “our” money to which we are entitled. It is, I think, this sense of entitlement that is probably the single greatest factor that will contribute to the soon-to-be colossal tax increases that will be required to maintain the current levels of entitlement.

It is time to address Social Security straight on. No more magical formulas, no more deduct this, claim that, stand on your head and cough. Pure and simple, there are a couple of basic steps to be taken that I believe will put the system back on the right track, the first measure being to eliminate the earnings cap and make all earned income subject to Social Security withholding. The second measure – surely to cause some to temporarily lose their sight – is to establish a means test to qualify for Social Security. To be more plain, wealthy people should not be drawing Social Security. For them it amounts to nothing more than play money for the casinos or gas money for the travel home.

The second measure, of course, is nothing but a pipe dream because of the immense power of the AARP lobby. Elected officials are scared silly of the elderly, and there is a reason why Social Security is known as the “third rail of politics” – you touch it, you die. You’re career as a public official is over, but the public is no less served by such sacred cows when we refuse to acknowledge something is askew. It is also ironic that those with higher incomes are “entitled” (to use the term loosely) to higher Social Security benefits because of their level of income while they were working. Elderly widows who spent a lifetime taking care of home and hearth get the least – and these are the ones who desperately need it most especially if Social Security is their sole means of support.

The system is going to require radical changes, and elected officials are going to have to step up to the plate and stand up for what is right. But before members of Congress will get serious about Social Security, they will have to hear from us. No one is “entitled” to anything from the US government. Any program that exists had noble intentions and social purpose: to help those who cannot help themselves. We cry and rail about welfare benefits given to those who can do for themselves; why are we so noticeably silent about Social Security?