One of my earliest memories of revulsion against war came from seeing a photograph from the First World War when I was a teenager. It was nothing gory. Just a picture of a military officer, in an impressive uniform, talking to a puzzled and forlorn-looking old peasant woman with a cloth wrapped around her head.
He said simply: "Don't you understand, madam? The village is not there any more."
To many such people of that era, the village was the only world they knew. And to say that it had been destroyed in the carnage of war was to say that there was no way for them to go back home, that their whole world was gone.
Recently that image came back, in a wholly different context, while seeing pictures of American seniors carrying signs that read "Hands off my Social Security" and "Hands off my Medicare."
They want their Social Security and their Medicare to stay the way they are — and their anger is directed against those who want to change the financial arrangements that pay for these benefits.
Their anger should be directed instead against those politicians who were irresponsible enough to set up these costly programs without putting aside enough money to pay for the promises that were made — promises that now cannot be kept, regardless of which political party controls the government.
Someone needs to say to those who want Social Security and Medicare to continue on unchanged: "Don't you understand? The money is not there any more."
Many retired people remember the money that was taken out of their paychecks for years and feel that they are now entitled to receive Social Security benefits as a right. But the way Social Security was set up was so financially shaky that anyone who set up a similar retirement scheme in the private sector could be sent to federal prison for fraud.
But you can't send a whole Congress to prison, however much they may deserve it.
This is not some newly discovered problem. Innumerable economists and others pointed out decades ago that Social Security was unsustainable in the long run, including yours truly on "Meet the Press" in 1981.
But the long run doesn't count for most politicians, since elections are held in the short run.
Politicians' election prospects are enhanced, the more goodies they can promise and the less taxes they collect to pay for them.
That is why welfare states in Europe as well as here are facing bitter public protests as the chickens come home to roost.
It has been said innumerable times that nobody already on Social Security will lose their benefits. But it needs to be spelled out emphatically, so that political demagogues will not be able to scare retired seniors that they are going to have the rug pulled out from under them.
Retired seniors have the least to fear from a reform of Social Security, since neither political party is about to take away what these retirees already have and are relying on.
Despite irresponsible political ads showing an old lady in a wheel chair being dumped over a cliff, the people who are really in danger of being dumped over a cliff are the younger generation, who are paying into Social Security but are unlikely to get back anything like what they are paying in.
The money that young workers are paying into Social Security today is not being put aside to pay for their retirement. It is being spent today, paying the pensions of the retired generation — and it can't even cover that in the years ahead.
What needs to be done is to allow younger workers a choice of staying out of a system that is simply running out of money. Nor can the system be saved by simply jacking up taxes on "the rich."
Generations of experience have shown that high tax rates that "the rich" can easily avoid — through tax shelters at home or by investing their money abroad — do not bring in as much revenue as lower tax rates that keep the money here and the jobs here.
Since the law does not allow private pension plans to be set up in the financially irresponsible way Social Security is, that is where young people's money should be put, if they ever want to see that money again when they reach retirement age.
To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
10 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
By adding dissiaility recipients to the original premise behind the retirememnt benefits for seniors. This has cost the program more dollars than any other thing, but the Liberals will not discuss this delema. Retirement programs are now part of the federal while welfare and dissability should be taken care of by the states.
Comment: #1
Posted by: John C. Davidson
Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:28 AM
|
|
|
|
"Their anger should be directed instead against those politicians who were irresponsible enough to set up these costly programs without putting aside enough money to pay for the promises that were made ....."
Reminds me that most politicians are attorneys and attorneys are always willing to "sue" as long as you are willing to pay. No guarantees that you have a reasonable case or any case at all - only that you have a fat wallet and are seeking "justice".
Comment: #2
Posted by: m cragin
Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:06 AM
|
|
|
|
I normally agree with almost everything Mr. Sowell writes but I have zero sympathy for the statement, "Someone needs to say to those who want Social Security and Medicare to continue on unchanged: "Don't you understand? The money is not there any more.""
The destruction of the village was an unforeseeable disaster, or at least not one caused by the government responsible for the village. When somebody like Charles Ponzi or Bernard Madoff or Barack Obama, however, tells you the money you paid into a program--or were forced to pay into a program--isn't there any more, that is a crime and not something that "just happened." Those responsible should be treated with the same contempt our society reserves for criminals like Madoff and Ponzi. Those willing to accept such a situation, like AARP, should be treated with contempt. I am not a member of AARP and, if I ever join, it will be solely for the discounts and not because the AARP represents me in any way.
My position as a person in my mid-fifties is, "You (government) forced me to pay into this program. When I turn 65 or 70, I want mine. Don't tell me the money isn't there. Take it out of government-sponsored 'diversity programs,' benefits for illegal aliens, the money our country wastes on the United Nations. Take it out of your own [expletive] Congressional salaries if you have to but I want mine. If you steal the money I have put into the system, you will automatically lose my vote. End of story."
Comment: #3
Posted by: Bill Levinson
Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:27 PM
|
|
|
|
"My position as a person in my mid-fifties is, "You (government) forced me to pay into this program. When I turn 65 or 70, I want mine. Don't tell me the money isn't there. Take it out of government-sponsored 'diversity programs,' benefits for illegal aliens, the money our country wastes on the United Nations. Take it out of your own [expletive] Congressional salaries if you have to but I want mine. If you steal the money I have put into the system, you will automatically lose my vote. End of story."
There is one place else I will take it out of if I don't get mine....
Comment: #4
Posted by: SNAKESRULE
Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:19 PM
|
|
|
|
We as baby boomers have paid into the system from the time we earned our first dollar. Because of the size of our generation, social security was in a surplus years ago. Lots of folks paying in with smaller numbers of folks getting their benefits taking out. Greedy politicians, both Democrat and Republican, couldn't stand the fact money was available for them to spend. So they went ahead and started taking money out of the system. They started spending what was meant to be our retirement. Like addicts they couldn't stop "borrowing" or spending that money.
I don't remember how many commissions were set-up to keep social security "solvent." Each time taxing us further and further or raising the limit on the dollar amount that became taxable. At the same time assuring us the money would be there for us and remain solvent well into the next century (which is now this century). Now that it's time to collect our social security benefits we contributed for decades, Congress wants to cut our benefits because the money is no longer there. It's not the tax payers fault. That's why ordinary people have started grass root organizations like the Tea Party. Congress doesn't get it. We are not going to tolerate this much longer
Since the Democrat party and this administration has been reckless with their spending plans, they will be getting a message loud and clear from the electorate in Nov 2012. We are not stupid. You think a message was sent in the election of 2010? "Baby you ain't seen nothin yet...Here's something you're never forget" (BTO) Republicans that continue on this path will also be getting challenges from their own party within to lead us out of the morass we are currently stuck in brought on by poor representation.
JoHn Piper
Comment: #5
Posted by: John Piper
Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:57 PM
|
|
|
|
Re:
SNAKESRULE
Medicare went up 14%... MadicAID, food stamps, unemployment went up 67%.. So where should we cut??? Cut the ones who have payed, or cut the ones who want everything free?
Comment: #6
Posted by: Chase
Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:39 AM
|
|
|
|
We are constantly being told that Social Security is going broke. However it is ignored that Social Security is paying out for many things besides retirement income. For example, the Low Income Subsidy program pays prescription drug plan premiums for low income seniors. The Social Security Trust is seen as a pool of money to be used for social engineering. This needs to be stopped. Social engineering should be recognized and funded by Medicaid, if money is available.
Comment: #7
Posted by: George Fox
Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:36 AM
|
|
|
|
You points are well taken, Mr. Sowell. Just to expand on how younger workers should be allowed to opt out of SS, if I may. The process below would have to be implemented incrementally as SS did not happen overnight and will take time to go the way of the dinosaur:
Since a person who is paying into SS is employed, the employer should educate him/her on the available investment strategies such as stocks, bonds, standard interest bearing accounts, etc. and be held accountable for correctly administering the employee contributions.
Oversight only by the Feds to ensure the investments are being handled appropriately and in accordance with the wishes of the contributors. (In this way, the greedy politicians never get a chance to touch the earned money).
(It would also be wise at the present time to review and tighten up on the criteria for SSI eligibility.)
Thank you and keep on writin'!
Comment: #8
Posted by: R. Patton
Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:21 PM
|
|
|
|
"But you can't send a whole Congress to prison, however much they may deserve it."
Why not? (I mean, aside from our overall apathy, lack of spine, and servile deference toward professional office-seekers as a class.) Logistically it might not be that much of a problem. They'd have to be charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced of course, but surely in a nation this size there are enough lawyers, court rooms, and jurors.
Comment: #9
Posted by: R.A.
Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:47 PM
|
|
|
|
Dr Sowelll owes his readers an apology for the inaccuracies in his column on Social Security. Contributors to Social Security were paying in enough for them to draw their scheduled benefits until the last few years and has enough saved from past excess contributions to pay benefits until 2037. In the past - since its inceptiom - Social Security collected more than it paid out and has a couple of trillion in its savings account, the Social Security Trust Funds. The problem here is that Social Security is limited by law as to where it can invest this excess and, consequently, put it into Treasury certificates.
So it's not that the beneficiaries didn't pay in enough to draw their benefits as scheduled, but that the money has been borrowed by the government to fund its overspending. The government would need to break the budget to pay it back, wants to re-neg, and consequently is trying to lump Social Security with those nasty, socialistic, and unaffordable entitlement programs.
I think it is a disservice on Dr Sowell's part to help foist off this particular bit of misinformation. Social Security is a bought and paid for program funded by its contributors. The money isn't there because it was misappropriated. Please make the distinction.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Pete Westover
Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:01 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
