Regarding the March 6 article in your paper written by Andrew Brod:
I think Brod is a "liberal hellbent on preserving Social Security no matter what." Brod (and your editorial board in various other articles this year) have suggested that the program will remain solvent "until perhaps 2052." In his article, Brod states that these are the projections of the Social Security Administration and Congressional Budget Office.
I recently received from the Social Security Administration a statement of my account. Beside the figures stating my projected benefits is an asterisk with a disclaimer that says: "The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2042, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 73 percent of scheduled benefits." Insinuating that the Social Security Administration is claiming program solvency beyond 2042 is simply either the result of ignorance of what the SSA itself is telling citizens or a deliberate attempt to deceive people in a "hellbent attempt to preserve Social Security no matter what."
You should look at the statement that comes with your own SSA statement. Once you know the truth yourselves, maybe you will stop spreading untrue statements.
George Russell
Whitsett
Comments (3)
George,
I think what that verbage on the SSA statement indicates more that any impending insolvency of the program is the politicization (sp) of the SSA. This is an inapropriate piece of propaganda from the Bush administration, who is pushing a plan that even they admit won't solve the long term solvency problem that the above verbage aludes to.
We must focus the discussion on the solvency of the SS program and not allow ourselves to be distracted by private account unless it can be demonstrated how they contribute to the solving of that problem. BTW 2052 is the estimate of the CBO, 2042 the estimate of the SSA. Let's call it 2047 and move on. Nobody knows.
We have a long term problem so let's treat it like a long term problem and give it some thought and not jump at the first plan thrown out.
The main thing is to focus on the solvency of the program. Anything else is a waste of time or worse.
Posted by Marshall | March 13, 2005 4:12 PM
Marshall,
I agree with you that we neeed to focus upon the solvency of Social Security; that is a primary issue.
I disagree with you that anything else is a waste of time or worse. Social Security was implemented in the depression era of the 1930's. Everything about America then is like night and day compared with the America of the 21st Century. Why do we cling to a solution that is over 70 years old and say that it is the right one for our time? I say that we need to take a fresh look at Social Security, at the same time that we are trying to fix the solvency problem. After all, the design of the plan that was implemented 70+ years ago has created the solvency problem that we have now.
Why are certain elements of our country so fearful of the idea of private accounts? All of the posts that I see on this subject are that it is a non-starter and it's not up for discussion. If the basic design of the plan is what is causing the solvency problem, then why are we resisting taking a fresh look at the plan to make it healthy for next 70 years?
Posted by Teddy Ballgame | March 13, 2005 8:48 PM
Teddy B,
I don't have a problem with taking a fresh look at SS nor do I have a problem with private accounts. Shucks I have 401ks and IRAs. I'm a believer in these sort of vehicles.
My problem with private accounts is pushing them as a solution to the solvency problem. We're talking apples and oranges here. The fact seems to be that they won't solve the solvency issue so that's why I say talking about them is a waste of time and implementing them looks like it will make the problem worse.
I'm not trying to come at this from an ideological point of view unless you believe that viewing SS as an insurance policy instead of an investment is ideological. I'm trying to be practical. Taking money out of the system at the same percentage as you lessen the fixed obligation will not solve the solvency problem and the increased debt that we take on for the transition on top of the debt that we currently have could put our economy at risk (it certainly won't help it).
If you or GWB or anyone else floats an alternate plan that would satisfy my objectives I would happily support it. So far no one has.
Bush's folks supposedly are studying a plan by a fellow that headed the mid '90s analysis of SS (sorry I can't remember his name). I read a summary of his plan a week or two ago and I was impressed by his approach. It included private accounts but also some minor benefit cuts and revenue enhancements (yes taxes). The details escape me right now but his approach was serious and that's what I liked about it. Most of what I've heard on the subject is just ideological and political jockeying.
This is too important to play on that game.
thanks for the response,
Posted by Marshall | March 13, 2005 9:25 PM