Robert Samuelson wrote this piece that was published in Newsweek. The premise:
As someone born in late 1945, I say this to the 76 million or so subsequent baby boomers and particularly to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, our generation’s leading politicians: shame on us. We are trying to rob our children and grandchildren, putting the country’s future at risk in the process. On one of the great issues of our time, the social and economic costs of our retirement, we have adopted a policy of selfish silence.
Nancy Pelosi promises to “build a better future for all of America’s children.” If she were serious, she would back cuts in Social Security and Medicare. President Bush calls “entitlement spending” the central budget problem. If he were serious, he, too, would propose cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
He backs up this statement with the following points:
- 65-and-over population will double by 2030 (to almost 72 million, or 20 percent of the total population)
- In 2005, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (the main programs for the elderly) cost $1.034 trillion, twice the amount of defense spending and more than two fifths of the total federal budget. These programs are projected to equal about three quarters of the budget by 2030, if it remains constant as a share of national income.
- The tax increases required by 2030 could hit 50 percent, if other spending is maintained as a share of national income. Or much of the rest of government (from defense to national parks) would have to be shut down or crippled. Or budget deficits would balloon to quadruple today’s level.
- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are pay-as-you-go programs. Present taxes pay present benefits. In 2005, 86 percent of Social Security payroll taxes went to pay current retiree benefits. True, excess taxes had created a “surplus” in the Social Security trust fund (it hasn’t been “plundered”) of $1.66 trillion in 2005; but that equaled less than four years’ worth of present benefits. More important, Medicare and Medicaid represent three quarters of the projected spending increase for retirees by 2030.
Â
Please read the entire piece. He balances his condemnation equally to the right and left, and there is plenty of blame to go around. I do not agree that you cut benefits to those that make more. There are cuts that can and should be made but that is not one of them..I would deny any illegal a benefit first and foremost as they committed a few crimes prior to even putting those funds in. I agree with raising the age to 70, but he assumes that the person making more will save more and doesn’t take into account that we do have poor people that will do as little as possible in order to collect a benefit!
Hat tip to Noel Sheppard
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random Yak, Big Dog’s Weblog, Right Truth, basil’s blog, Stuck On Stupid, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Rightwing Guy, 123 Beta, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The HILL Chronicles, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein… has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox News, Dumb Ox News, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.  Â
Â
I simply want them to make taking a portion of your payments private to fund your own retirement an option. EVERY FEDERAL government employee has had that option since the mid 80s and those that took the option have a much rosier retirement picture than those that didn’t. Why is it okay for all of these @#$%^&* democratic congressmen and senators to have a PORTION of their Social Security taxes go into a privatized account but not for the rest of us? I realize that to the hard core libs that doesn’t seem the least bit hypocritical, but it sure does to the rest of us. For all of those congressmen who claim that privatized accounts will lead to smaller benefits for those who opt for them, I just have to ask if they are lying or stupid. Either they are lying about privatized accounts being bad, or they are stupid to have signed up for them. Seeing as history has shown that privatized accounts pay on average more than 6 times as much in return as the current system, the facts would lead me to believe that they are lying. It’s time to bite the bullet, fix the system and allow the option for privatized accounts while it’s still possible to retire young enough to enjoy it rather than work yourself into an early grave.
I remember AARP lobbying against any privatization of SS, even a portion. Their big reason was that the money might go into risky investments, like the stock market.
While at the very same time, AARP investment counselors were oitching to members to manage their portfolios in the very same investments!
thanks for the link..so true..the economy..one more thing to worry bout eh?:razz:
I’ve squirreled up enough crack to last me for 100 years. I will never have to rely on Social Security for my crack buys.
I recommend the rest of you do the same because you never know…
I think we should raise taxes.
…particularly on the rich. (!)
Social Security? Raise the cap.
We also need some form of Universal Health Care.
How much are we spending in Iraq each week? 5 billion or so? I think we can find better uses for that money.
“I think we should raise taxes.”
Of course you do. It is need to fund the social programs that you so desire to- those that when implemented too heavily, would collapse our economical growth and ensure future votes by expanding the entitlement state.
I see no reason for “univesal health care”. That is addressing (incorrectly) the sypmtoms of the ailment, and not the cause.