NYT’s Review of the Social Security Debate
The New York Times has an interesting overview of the current fiscal state of the US Social Security system. I personally have mixed feelings about the system (it costs me a lot of money and I think that baby boomers will make out like bandits at my expense) but still enjoyed the series.
There’s a lot of interesting numbers. Of course, the Times has generally supported the system of the last 70 years for a variety of reasons. I wonder how many of us remember that FDR created social programs in order to “save capitalism”. Large corporations also back it, along with other federal business laws, in order to make the various States more or less equivalent. Back before computers, having 50 different pension requirements made for a lot of extra work. And potential liability.
The upshot of the main article is that the various actuaries feel pretty secure about Social Security: although any projection is inherently faulty (we project out from the past; no one saw the computer in 1920), the Social Security actuaries have been relatively accurate recently. It seems like the only reason to do too much to SS has to do with personal beliefs about the morality of taxation and not with the solvency of the system.
I’d be interested in seeing what the researchers come up with. There’s a wide variance on Social Security’s solvency, but it seems like the actuaries strongly tip towards its security.
good heavens. solvent? try reading some sources other than leftist propoganda. i read the nytimes just to see what the left is pushing, not for any real journalism. they’re kinda like cbs these days. incidentally, if you really want to read a comunist rag, try the philadelphia enquirer.
simply put, there isn’t enough money to do everything, and its time to start prioritizing, because raising taxes is not an option. secondly, if you had the money you put into SS in a privately controlled 401k type account which you controlled and which only took moderate risk, you’d get significantly more money than you’ll get from SS.
i’ll get back to the SS issue, but here’s a link to a political post today. i thought this was very interesting and if a correct analysis a huge shift in the political structure of the U.S.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/272929p-233706c.html
Article link:
“Are blacks united? Ask Condoleezza” by Stanley Crouch, NY Daily News.
This is even mentioned in the State of the Union essays in this month’s Atantic Montly. It’s a very big issue for the democrats and for the republicans. A large influx of blacks back to the party of lincoln might be problematical. For the dems, the loss of an easy, count-’em-beforehad voting population (12%) would be devastating.
Crouch’s saying “look to the black church” is said a lot by lots of folks. As a population, African-Americans (specific from other blacks) are not neo-cons, but they certainly don’t support social changes like gay marriage. I think that blacks are less likely to support gay marriage than whites.
Very interesting article.
Here’s a couple interesting political pieces I picked up today. First, Al Zaraquawi (sp?) doesn’t hate the U.S., he hates democracy. He clearly doesn’t have any political advisors to help him craft his public statements. . . . . the quote’s a few paragraphs into the article.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=437899
And here’s another interesting one from a former Clinton aide. Seems like the more people get out of the school house and get into real life, the more they shift to the right. Like Abbey Hoffman the formerly famous anarchist who’s now a card carrying Republican (even I don’t carry a card!).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-01-17-military-elite_x.htm
Ok, google’s top ten returns for “social security solvency” gave me the following links from 2000 to 2004:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6743691/
http://research.aarp.org/econ/fs39r_ss.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-27-96.html
http://moonagewebdream.blogs.com/kentm401_economics/2005/01/social_security.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/03/30/socsec.medicare/
http://www.democrats.org/news/200501120002.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/magazine/16SOCIAL.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=c69362c3ed6e5cf8&ex=1106715600
To summarize, sometime in the late “20teens” (2018 seems to be the most quoted year) SS will operate at a loss (more going out than coming in).
That’s not solvency.
It will be flat broke by the middle of the century. (The only reason it will last that long is because Alan Greenspan is really smart and bought us 20 – 30 years to fix the problem. Which is basically what he said when he and the bipartisan commission he ran came up with their solution.)
That is not solvency.
Anyway, the listed sources are pretty much left leaning, and none of them have any better prediction of success for SS than any of the right leaning sources I could have used. So the basic assertion that it’s solvent is incorrect or only partially correct at best. The assertion about the decision of what to do about it being a morality base one is spot on. We must ask ourselves, “Can the government do for me better than I can do for myself?” Having been a government employee for a significant period of time, I’ll stick with myself.
Another interesting article. . .. nothing to do with SS. . .. ..
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/mhelprin/?id=110006198