Social Security reform

Since The Star raised the issue again in its recent editorial (3/28, Opinion, “Social Security, Medicare need fundamental reform”), let’s review the situation.

Bush did try to make Social Security reform a key legislative initiative, but the Democrats would not negotiate unless funding of individual accounts by workers was off the table, calling it “privatization.”

The real issue, however, is that diverting some funds to individual accounts would decrease the cash flow to fund the promises made to the retired generation. Young people backing Barack Obama should get him on the dime on this issue.

It’s simple. The only way to fund entitlements is to tax younger workers. It’s like a Ponzi scheme. Raising the income level on which taxes are paid, while alleviating the cash flow problem now, only postpones it to a later time when it may be even more acute.

Medicare is more problematic. If young people remain apathetic or do not hold their standard-bearers to some promises, they will pay the price, as politicians will pander to the largest voting bloc.

I do not see any evidence that either party plans to address this issue, although John McCain has shown a tendency to reach across the aisle on big issues.

Stephen Kunz
Overland Park

Open letter to Social Security and the future president: I wish to withdraw from the Social Security system. You may keep everything I have contributed to Social Security for the last 20 years (since the age of 15).

Even though it’s my money, I will not complain about how it’s spent or to what unrelated government program “borrows” it. I would instead prefer to invest my money into a profitable, reliable retirement system of my choosing that will actually be available to me when I retire.

If you grant me this personal financial freedom — which should already be granted to every American — to do with my money set aside for my retirement what I wish, then I promise not to petition, litigate or count on the U.S. government in any way shape or form for any type of return or assistance in the future for any reason.

C. Green
Overland Park

Comments

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Avg Joe, raising taxes and then bragging about balancing a budget means nothing.
There is no magic about raising taxes and then bragging about hving more than you started with. he JUST happened to be in office during the dotcom bubble,NOTHING he did had ANYTHING to do with that. What about the 11M jobs that faded during his tenure? What about all the families he bunkrupted? Not that Bush is any better but all the idiots praising Clinton like they actually saw more money in their pocket when he was the goon in charge.

[Stifled Freedom]

Well I am not a big fan of Bill Clinton, but at least he left office with a managable federal budget and deficit. Since there is no seperate SS fund, its certainly crucial for the govt to have the money to pay out SS benefits. Bush has run the federal budget into the ground.

[Engineer]

Average Joe & jack
You downplay President Bush's efforts at SS reform. Could you list the efforts by others to reach a solution?

[Stifled Freedom]

C Green who did you vote for in the primary? If you did not vote for Ron Paul, forget about any opt outs of Social Security. The poeple get the govt they deserve.

And the letter is not exactly correct. Bush did make a token attempt at social security reform right after the 2004 election. He suggested one alternative, did not negotiate and dropped it quickly. But it was a Republican controlled congress in early 2005 blocked it.

[Rogue]

lower case neither party has had a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate in the past eight years. Now pick up your head from whatever orifice it is in and give that fact some thought.

[jack]

"Bush did try to make Social Security reform a key legislative initiative, but the Democrats would not negotiate unless funding of individual accounts by workers was off the table, calling it “privatization.” --

Yep, there they go, blaming Bush again.

The Dems not "negotiating" with Bush is the problem. Now, let me see, which party controlled Congress at that time? Oh, yeah...

Looked to me like the problem wa a whole bunch of Republicans wouldn't "negotiate" with Bush.

Question: Why is it that whenever Bush has said some version of "It's my way or no way" he is standing firm and proving himself a great leader while the other side is "refusing to negotiate" and proving themselves to be evil for doing the exact same thing?

Hey, Rogue! Now that you have discovered the pot and kettle, could this be another example?

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

C.Green, you hit the nail on the head, although the liberals will come back and tell you that we do not know what is best for ourselves. Obviously investing in a negative return retirement vehicle and one that you have ZERO control over is somehow a sound and secure plan.
Maybe Pelosi's stimulus plan of affording more foodstamps the answer to America's problems.

[Gary]

It should have been difficult for the Star's editorial board to recognize that there are problems with Social Security and Medicare, and then blame President Bush for inaction. But for them, it was kneejerk easy. They're that good.