One of the major disappointments for me in Monday night’s
GOP debate was to hear some of the candidates articulate their ideas for “fixing”
Social Security and Medicare. I’m tired
of hearing people who profess to be “conservatives” propose that we fix our
socialist-like entitlement system by making it look more and more like....(drum
roll please)...socialism!
I don’t expect any candidate to propose that we get out of
the business of Social Security altogether.
Right or wrong, Social Security is here to stay in one form or
another. Given that as the situation,
what would be the next best way to make the program comport to the conservative
ideal of maximum personal liberty and self-reliance? The answer is that we make it as close to individually
self-funding as practical and possible. Gingrich’s
proposal that we adopt the “Chilean” approach to retirement savings is the only
one that even comes close to meeting that essential mark.
It infuriates me to hear some suggest that we “means-test”
Social Security so that people who are deemed not to “need” the money can
forget about receiving anything when they reach the age of retirement. “From
each according to his ability. To each
according to his need.” That’s what
that is. Pure Marxism, plain and
simple. There would be nothing wrong
with asking people to voluntarily give up Social Security
payments in the interest of charity or with people choosing to do so on their
own, but it is nothing short of stealing to force people to do so against their
will. It is not the State’s decision to
decide who does or does not “need” the money, or even that “need” should be a
requirement for getting what was promised.
Once we head down that road we give our de facto consent to the ideas
behind Marxism, and place ourselves on the fast track to the European-style
socialism that is decried by the very people who suggest “means-testing” Social
Security.
As for raising the retirement age (or, to put it more
accurately, to raise the age at which people can draw Social Security benefits),
if the method for funding Social Security is resulting in the average person
under-funding their retirement, then sure – it should be raised. Why should you get to draw benefits at 62 if
what you’ve contributed computes to a retirement age of 70? But the whole argument underscores the mess
that’s been made here and the need for a very different approach. Since people don’t directly fund their own
personal retirement funds it’s impossible to say who has or has not contributed
enough to earn benefits by any given age.
The whole Social Security dilemma/debacle should provide a
prime opportunity for teaching the harsh lessons about the realities of
policies that are based on the ideas of socialism. What must someone who’s 54 think about these
great plans to “fix” Social Security by preserving it as is for people 55 and
older while telling everyone younger, “Sorry!
You got gypped.” But the lesson
has been completely lost in these debates because everyone is a politician
first, and a conservative second (assuming they’re a conservative at all).
It’s time to give up the notion that Social Security can be “saved.” If history teaches us anything here it’s that
the system is inherently flawed and over time people will be asked to give up
more and more of what they’ve contributed in order to support those who, for
whatever reasons good or bad, have not lived up to their responsibility for
taking care of their own needs. We are
living history right now! We must get out from under this system
once and for all, and from what I can see Newt is the only one who is proposing
a plan that does so.
Don’t even get me started on Medicare.
Wet blanket time ... sorry to be a party pooper, CW but I don't for one minute believe that Gingrich would sing the same song in a general election.
ReplyDeleteThe fix for this is simple when you get right down to it. The problem is we now live in a country of gimmes and don't take it awayers. Well I don't know how Medicare could be handled, but SS is a no brianer. Problem is that all people hear and all the liberal/leftist/progressives shout about is that those awful people want to harm the oldsters. Fear generation and fear-mongering at its finest.
Rant and wet blanket moment over ... we now return the the excellent post CW has put up and her more coherent commenter people.
That’s fair, Mrs. AL. Gingrich deserves people’s suspicion. Maybe it’s just wishful thinking but I see this as a winning point even in a general election, particularly for younger generations who ought to be very worried about their chances of ever collecting Social Security.
DeleteBut I don’t understand what you mean when you say SS is a no-brainer.
The SS "fix" if you will is to phase it out. Not a problem. Took us how long to get in this mess, gonna' take awhile to get us out. Heck, welfare and all of it could be phased out over at least a generation, maybe two. It's just not that hard. Or am I being really really naive?
DeleteIn a time when it’s considered a HUGE political risk to suggest even the slightest “reform” to SS I would say that there is zero chance that it will ever be phased out. Bush’s modest proposals on SS went down in an overwhelmingly defeat.
DeleteBut even beyond that I would ask, “Are we a nation that is ready to let people suffer the consequences of their failure to save for retirement?” Can I, as an individual, prevent the State from taking my property to support those who never saved a dime? Until the answer is “yes” I would say we will never get rid of SS in one form or another.
Your argument is compelling, CW. Great come-back.
DeleteToo bad we aren't a nation of grown-ups. It's really sad.
So what do you think of Perry's endorsement of Gingrich?
ReplyDeleteI didn’t know about it until you asked (not watching the news today, obviously).
DeleteI think that was a smart thing for Perry to do. He blew his chances early on and by staying in he risks being a spoiler for Gingrich or perhaps Santorum, so if he ultimately wanted to have an impact on the race and have any influence on the outcome this was probably his best shot.
CW, what do you propose to do about social security and Medicare? Status quo is not sustainable so doing nothing is really not an option about reforming the programs. I agree to your point, these are socialist programs, but we are stuck with them. I also agree that proposals to "fix" or "reform" these programs are not very convincing. I do not know the solution, but just curious what you think.
ReplyDeleteThat’s quite a question, Patrick!
DeleteWhen you’re looking at how to fix a problem, you first need to understand what your starting point is. As I told Mrs. AL, I don’t believe we can change the nation’s mindset on the notion of forced retirement savings and/or the notion that it is the govt’s job to take care of those who have not taken care of themselves. With that as our starting point, I suggest that the next best thing is to adopt a plan under which people save for their OWN retirements as opposed to the Ponzi scheme we currently have. Having people take ownership for the responsibility of one’s retirement funding – along with ownership of that fund in life and in death – can only be beneficial to everyone involved.
My understanding of the Chilean approach that Gingrich touted as a possible solution is that people are required to put aside 10-20% of their earnings from the time they begin working and this is invested in their choice of private investments. They then own that account and can pass it on in their will when they die. It has been very successful in Chile. The growth people achieve in their accounts far surpasses the returns on Social Security deposits, and the investment in private entities has been a huge boost for the economy of Chile. The gov’t has not had to fund any shortfalls. Bottom line, people are taking care of themselves and they are reaping the rewards for their efforts, which is how it should be.
As for Medicare I think I will have to address that by writing a post (that’s code for saying, “I need more time to think.”).
Sounds reasonable to me and I look forward to your Medicare post (What a mess). Maybe you and Dr. Pete should run for office - I mean what a concept - understand the problem first. Too bad our politicians and CEOs do not think like this.
ReplyDelete