Home of Today's Common Sense

Published – Brownsville Herald 3/6/2005 as “Government just wants to maintain its power”

Social Security just as with most of the other issues of the day such as: education, public assistance and public health care, the prohibition of the federal government to make laws with respect to religion, etc.; is more about centralizing power at the federal level and who holds the reigns of that power –really- getting re-elected. It has very little to do with “looking out for the folks”.
The two major political parties, work very hard to differentiate themselves by “talking about” differing ideological differences but when you really look; you see that the party of the working man that has repeatedly campaigned on the dangers coming to Social Security, civil rights for minorities and in the 1960’s a Democratic presidential candidate even espoused the “flat tax”. (I saw the speech)
On the other side “the party of the rich” is taking actions and accomplishing the goals of the “working man” and won over much of America outside the big cities.
An analysis of the election results, county by county, demonstrates that the Democratic party won primarily in cities, where social programs are most important and the Republicans won rural America and the South where individual choices are most prized.
What we got was a President who espouses rugged individuality and personal choices and a bureaucracy that still wants to protect the hard won power centers and the right to tell us how to live and what to think. There may be differences in the rhetoric but in the reality of the vote, big government and centralized power are the goals for both parties. The actuality is that, we really only have one party where the players in one uniform propose each other’s initiatives which still don’t get passed because the players in the other uniform didn’t advocate that position this time. It is the same in local government also.
Social Security is just such an issue. In 1935 Franklin Roosevelt suggested that “Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,” adding that government funding,”ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.”
Though, how that was to be managed, is being hotly debated, the idea that, something else is needed besides a publicly supported program. where many who pay into the program will either not be able to collect benefits or even recover what they paid in. The writing was on the wall in 1935 and the letters keep getting larger.
At issue in the halls of Congress and the bureaucracy, is who will mange the program and benefit from the apparent largess that comes every month in the Social Security check. They will be able, to point out that their party protects the meager sustenance and to threaten that the other party intends take food out of your mouths in old age.
The realities are that according to the Cato Institute, a Libertarian “think tank”, “Social Security is going bankrupt. The federal government’s largest spending program, accounting for nearly 22 percent of all federal spending, faces irresistible demographic and fiscal pressures that threaten the future retirement security of today’s young workers. According to the 2003 report of the Social Security system’s Board of Trustees, in 2018, just 14 years from now, the Social Security system will begin to run a deficit. That is, it will begin to spend more on benefits than it brings in through taxes.”
For Social Security, as it is now, that means either higher taxes or lower benefits. Even if Social Security’s financial difficulties could be fixed by raising taxes or cutting benefits, the system would still need to be reformed because it is a bad deal for most Americans. Social Security simply costs too much and pays too little. Social Security’s rate of return on payroll taxes right now is dismal (about 2 percent) and declining.
Tinkering with the system has reduced benefits to the point where many folks, not among the wealthy already don’t receive the benefits they paid for.
An example of this is; a teacher or other public employee who survives on the meager government retirement and has additionally contributed to social security will have benefits reduced because of a supposed windfall. My wife and I personally fall into that category and I can tell you that we are not among the nations wealthy and have certainly not received a windfall as a result of our public service. The Social Security system is a very poor investment. Many of the folks with the most modest of incomes will not even collect benefits equal to what they paid in. In fact it is expected that a 25-year-old man living in a poor community would receive benefits, 4.46 percent less than he paid in under the current program. Under other conditions, the 25-year-old man is predicted to only lose 1 percent of his contribution.
The president has suggested a remodeling of the system that would include a voluntary assignment of part of the social security contribution to individual accounts.
As it happens a system like that currently exists as the Federal Employees Retirement System which went into effect in 1987, and almost all new Federal civilian employees hired after 1983 are automatically covered by this new retirement system.
Edited out in publication——->
It was a response to the changing times. Covered employees are able to choose what is best for their individual situation. Many of the federal employees, currently contemplating retirement under the system think very highly of it. One said it is the best thing since “sliced bread”.
The part that resembles the proposed accounts in Social Security is the Thrift Savings Plan which is a tax-deferred retirement savings and investment plan that offers the same type of savings and tax benefits that many private corporations offer their employees under 401 (k) plans.
Within the plan there are five investment funds for TSP accounts: G Fund­ investments in short-term, non-marketable U.S. Treasury securities; C Fund­ large-capitalization U.S. stocks; F Fund­a bond index fund consisting of a mix of government and corporate bonds; S Fund­small and mid-capitalization U.S. stocks; I Fund­ mostly large-capitalization foreign stocks. The rate of return for Last 12 months* (2/01/2004 to 1/31/2005) has been – G Fund 4.38%, C Fund 4.07%, F Fund 6.24%, S Fund 10.14%, I Fund 16.22%. This is much better than the projection for the future of those currently working.
End of Edited Part——————>
Granted the investment market is volatile over the short term but over the life of a working person’s career, the history of returns has been excellent. Just think of the worst case that those opposed suggest; If there are no returns in the economy that makes up the market on which the plan is based, it won’t really make a difference, because the businesses and the Nation will have ceased to exist.
Edited out in publication——->
A major concern of such an institution has been independence from political interference and if the system is managed as independently as the TSP, that risk is minimal. All remaining concerns are related to the loss of power, by the federal power brokers, to control the public through misusing Social Security contributions for other purposes or threatening the individual with losses or change if a particular behavior is not followed.
How many times in local politics have we heard that a needed service is about to be curtailed because of lack of money when a pet program has just been funded.
Ednd of edited area—————>
The reform of Social Security is really the second battle in the war that began in 1776 where “the folks” sought to have a say over their own lives and in the government. Right now bureaucracy assisted by our representatives who want more to get reelected than to look out for us, dictate how we live. We need a change for more freedom, ours is in decline.