| THE
BLUE
RED
COLUMN
The Mountain Press
SOCIAL SECURITY | |
|
Social Security needs help, but it isn't bankrupt
By: JIM ANDERSON May 22, 2005 Social Security may be the best U.S. Government program ever. It started in 1937, under Franklin Roosevelt, so everyone - not just rich folks - can retire with dignity and decency. And it's worked for nearly 70 years. Who helps the old, disabled or widowed? So far, it's Social Security. Now, the president says Social Security is nearly bankrupt and private retirement accounts (PRAs) are a great idea. He is wrong. The president uses hopscotch logic. He jumps to solutions, skips one big step (thinking), and always ends up: "Right problem, wrong solution." So: Public schools are failing? Let's offer private vouchers. U.S. autos burn too much fuel? Let's drill Alaska. Social Security is in trouble? Let's start privatized accounts. Social Security now bleeds because government "borrows" and spends the funds. With less wage-earners paying taxes and more retirees drawing benefits, the clocks are ticking louder. Lucky for billionaires, they only pay Social Security tax on their first $90,000. Social Security needs help but isn't bankrupt. If we do nothing, all benefits can be paid until 2018. Then, if the trust fund just spends its surplus and interest, 73 percent of benefits will still be covered. PRAs won't save Social Security. In reality, the president's plan cuts future benefits, spawns new bureaucracy, incurs investment fees, and adds trillions more to the national debt. To avoid the government's meddling - right now - just visit your bank and open your own Individual Retirement Account (IRA). Here are six better ways to save Social Security: (1) spend Social Security funds on Social Security only; (2) raise the cap above $90,000; (3) have no cap and tax all income; (4) repeal big tax cuts for the rich; (5) raise the retirement age; (6) stop paying Social Security to the super-rich. Social Security is the right problem. Privatization is just the wrong solution. -Jim Anderson is president of the Sevier County Democratic Club (www.sevierdemocrats.com). ŠThe Mountain Press 2005 |
Fixing Social Security would require sacrifice
By: JOE BAKER May 22, 2005 The institution of Social Security must evolve with the ever-changing face of the American public. As life expectancy increases, changes must be made to meet the needs of a burgeoning retirement class. This demographic change requires the modernization of Social Security. When considering the need to modernize Social Security, one must acknowledge that Social Security was never intended to provide for all of a person's retirement income. The name "Social Security" suggests that it offers just that - security. The numbers are clear. In 1950, 16 workers were paying into the system for every one retiree. Currently, only 3.3 workers pay into the system for each Social Security beneficiary. By the time today's youngest workers turn 65, there will only be two workers supporting each beneficiary. We as a nation must make small changes now to avoid a much larger crisis down the road. Of the many options available, those that would be most effective require the greatest sacrifice. Increasing the total wage base taxed, raising the age for benefits eligibility, or modestly reducing benefits would each dramatically impact Social Security's solvency. By making minimal sacrifices, Americans could ensure that the benefits of Social Security will continue to be available for future generations. By diverting a portion of Social Security contributions to private savings accounts, all Americans could accumulate wealth to supplement their Social Security benefits. Allowing these accounts to be opened at birth would give Americans the longest possible time to build their "nest egg" before retirement. Allowing individuals to build wealth in private savings accounts would provide every American the opportunity to contribute toward his or her own retirement. As a society we should work to be less dependent on government. By actively participating in private investment, we can be less dependent on Social Security and more capable of securing financial security on our own. -Joe Baker is a Sevierville attorney and active in the Republican Party. ŠThe Mountain Press 2005 |