One of the responsibilities of being a leader is to solve problems. Why are people afraid of change to the Social Security trust fund? President Clinton talked about reforming Social Security during his tenure, but nothing happened. Postponing this debate will lead to two solutions: decrease the benefits or a large tax increase. What is wrong with being proactive?
Bush talked about gradually implementing a new program which is consistent with having time to deal with a problem. Becoming proactive can defray the cost of reform over several decades and not leaving a problem for the next generation. If one was to ask the average citizen what you are entitled to from Social Security they would probably tell you, I will receive a check until I die.
The Social Security Advisory Board (2001) asserts that Social Security is a social insurance program. People are required to contribute in order to provide protection against the risk of loss of wages due to retirement, disability or death of a worker. Social Security has always intended to provide a foundation for retirement income that needs to be supplemented by individual savings and employer pensions. In the eyes of many Americans we are a nation of now if the problem does not surface today or tomorrow it is not important. For those people who are concerned about personally investing a portion of your Social Security, the president left the door open for this program to be voluntary. If the actual proposal is voluntary or has a plethora of options, which would be more appealing to some Americans.
As a young person myself, I feel this might become an eye opener for my generation when it comes to investing and saving money for our futures. If you talk to 10 older citizens who are retired or close to retirement, they will tell you if they had invested or saved $20 month, when they were younger, they would be a millionaire right now. Some of our legislators need to stop being selfish and focus on unity. That is the best way to get objectives accomplished. Instead of partisan politics, let us use our collective minds as Americans and give the president other options instead of criticizing his ideas. If no other ideas come to the table, then we will have to accept his ideas then.
Everyone who is interested should not just listen to the opinion of others, but make an effort to inform yourself and not let your legislators make all the decisions that will affect you and you children's futures.
Wilbert Vaughn
High Point
Comments (5)
I fully acknowledge that Social Security will need a fix, and I am not opposed to changes being made. I am, however, opposed to this administration attempting the fix. By their own admission, private accounts do nothing to fix the looming shortfalls. So it has been intellectually dishonest of this administration to link the two. This administration proclaimed over and over that their severe tax cuts would not cause deficits when it was quite obvious a deficit would be inevitable. Once deficits occurred, they blamed 9/11, but even if 9/11 hadn't occurred, deficits were likely. And, by the way, isn't it also the responsibility of a leader to recognize that unforseen problems may occur and not do things like, say, make unresponsible tax cuts? I am not proclaiming that only Democrats can fix Social Security, but if I must endure additional Republican administrations, I'll wait for one that has a better grasp of math to fix the problem. The trend of business has been, which I acknowledge as necessary to remain competitive, to offer less benefits such as savings plans. With wages being held down by foreign competition (which makes that $20/month savings you advocate impossible for many), we will need a Social Security system that is not based on bright predictions for the stock market that may or may not come to pass. Perhaps the Bush administration will get their plan passed, but I'm not going to quietly accept what I believe to be a subtle dismantling of this safety net for the most fragile in our society for the benefit of Wall Street. Oh, and by the way, just for the sake of intellectual curiosity, let's assume every citizen invests as Bush's plan suggests and ends up with the equivalent of a million dollars (in future dollars), I'd be curious to know from a knowledgable economist just what that million-dollar equivalent would be worth when everyone has it to spend.
Posted by Mindmatters | February 12, 2005 9:12 AM
Oh my, "an administration that has a better grasp of math!" What idiocy! Mindmatters has measured the mathmatic skills if the administration and found them lacking? Sir,Madam
the administration will lead the political battle in congress. Congress has the mental powers of both sides of the political aisle and all will be envolved in the final solution. The emotionalism imparted his comments is void of reason.
Mr. Vaughn has given presented a reasonable approach. Listen, learn and then put in your two bits.
Posted by Jasper Martin | February 12, 2005 12:16 PM
Just a quick followup. I stand by my comments. Repeatedly, mathematical projections by the Bush Administration have come up lacking. Mr. Martin accuses me of emotionalism, but it is he, not I, who resorted to calling someone's comments "idiocy." Truthfully, I suspect that people on both sides of this issue are emotional. I agree Mr. Vaughn's comments sound reasonable, and I would be all for implementing such a change if doing so fixed the looming shortfalls. Unfortunately, they don't, and that is according to spokespeople from the Bush administration. I suggest Mr. Martin "listen" to them and "learn," as he instructed me to do.
Posted by Mindmatters | February 13, 2005 6:39 AM
There was once a congressman by the name of Jim Martin from NC. When he was a member of the Ways and Means Committee he saw a crisis looming in Social Security as well as many others. He offered a plan at that time to allow folks to contribute to a private investment plan. Of course no one listened then and members on both sides of the aisle choose to duck and run from the subject because as they said then, "it not a crisis yet". Here today some 20 years later it seems we are right back where we were then. Politicians once again will talk the subject to death and nothing will be done until the walls come crashing down.
I thought of an analogy while writing this and I believe it sits well. When cooking a lobster, one puts it in cold water and places it over the heat. The lobster lulls idly by until the water boils. By that time it is too late. He's cooked.
Posted by mrproduce | February 13, 2005 9:07 AM
Democrat leaders have all agreed in the past that SS needs a radical course correction. Clinton as Pres declared it in crisis, and Harry Reid only a
couple of yr ago agreed that he could support some degree of private accounts.
Why now are they opposed?.......could it be they are Bush-haters who are so opposed to him getting "credit" they will thwart what is good for the citizens of this country....NAH, that couldnt be....or could it?
Posted by mike crouch | February 16, 2005 9:42 AM